MOHD RIZWAN ALIAS PAPOO Vs. NASIM AHMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the order dated 05.11.2009, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar, in criminal case no. 1023 of 2009, Nasim Ahmad vs Mohd. Rizwan, relating to offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) COMPLAINANT (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against Mohd. Rizwan (applicant herein) and M/s R.A. Trading Company, through its Proprietor, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar. After taking the affidavit of the complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and having gone through the documents filed by the complainant in this behalf, accused Mohd. Rizwan was summoned to face the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), vide order dated 05.11.2009.

(3.) THE complainant, in his statement under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., proved his complaint. He also filed the original cheque, bank memo, copy of the notice, postal receipts etc. under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. According to the complainant (respondent herein), he was the Proprietor of M/s Shabnoor Steel Traders, Jawalapur. Accused, who was the Proprietor of M/s R.A. Trading Company, purchased 30210 kg. of iron scrap from the complainant on 25.04.2009. Accused was to pay Rs. 6,28,368/ - to the complainant. Accused gave a cheque dated 25.04.2009, amounting to Rs. 6,28,368/ -, to the complainant on this behalf. When the complainant presented said cheque in the Central Bank, Branch Haridwar for payment, the same was returned with the endorsement Insufficiency of Funds . The banker gave such intimation to the complainant on 08.06.2009. The original cheque was also returned. The complainant, through his Advocate, sent a notice to the accused, which was served upon the accused, but despite service of such notice, the accused did not pay the required amount to the complainant. Hence, present complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by the complainant against the accused -applicant.