USHA RANI Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash summoning order dated 30.03.2010 (annexure 4) as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 667 of 2010, captioned as Pramod Kumar vs. Smt. Usha Rani, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

(2.) COMPLAINANT (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against accused (applicant herein) in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 138 of the Act. Affidavit was filed by the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Original cheque, bank return memo, registered notice and receipt of registered notice were filed under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Considering such statement and documents, accused -applicant was summoned to face the trial under Section 138 of the Act, vide order dated 30.03.2010 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the complainant, accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 1 1/2 lacs from him in July, 2008 for purchase of a plot. Complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 50,000/ - to the accused in July, 2008. He also gave a cheque of Rs. one lac to the accused in the same month and year. Accused promised to repay the amount to the complainant. On 07.07.2009, accused transferred Rs. 90,000/ - in the account of the complainant. She also gave another cheque of Rs. 60,000/ - to the complainant. When the complainant deposited those cheques for clearance in Urban Cooperative Bank, branch Kashipur road, Kashipur, the same were dishonoured for 'insufficiency of funds'. Complainant apprised the accused of the said fact. She again requested the complainant to deposit the cheque for clearance in February, 2010. When the complainant deposited the cheque in the bank for clearance, the same was dishonored again citing the reason of 'insufficiency of funds'. Complainant gave a notice to the accused, which was refused by her. Complainant again gave a registered notice through his Advocate, which was received by the accused. The reply furnished by the accused was wrong. Complainant filed the original cheque, bank return memo, registered notice and receipt of registered along with his complaint. The copy of the same was enclosed along with the counter affidavit of the complainant (respondent no.2). Offence under Section 138 of the Act was, therefore, prima facie made out against the accused -applicant. In other words, foundation of criminal offence is laid against her.