GAURAV AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of present C482 application, applicant has put to challenge the order dtd. 13/2/2017 as well as the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 26 of 2017, Sumit Kumar Vs. Gaurav Agarwal, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar, under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short "the Act,1881").

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was maintaining a bank account in the Indian Overseas Bank, Srinagar Garhwal. Two cheques, bearing numbers 724483 and 724484, were lost while the applicant was at Nainital. The applicant immediately approached the Indian Overseas Bank, Nainital Branch, and on 12/7/2016, submitted an application requesting stoppage of payment in respect of the said cheques. Subsequently, by report dtd. 15/7/2016, the bank confirmed that stop payment instructions had been carried out and the said cheques had been rendered incapable of encashment. The bank further debited the requisite charges for such stop-payment from the account of the applicant. It was alleged by the applicant that the said cheques, which had been reported lost, were in fact stolen and misused by the respondent no.2 after leaving employment. On the basis of such alleged misuse, the respondent no.2 instituted the complaint, alleging that on account of cordial relations between the parties, the applicant had issued a cheque bearing no. 724484 dtd. 5/12/2016 for a sum of 5,00,000/-in his favour. The cheque, when presented, was dishonoured on 15/12/2016 with the endorsement "insufficient funds."On the complaint so filed, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the applicant to face trial by order dtd. 13/2/2017. Non-bailable warrants were thereafter issued, and the applicant was arrested on 14/6/2019. He was later released on bail. Hence, this C482 applicant.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the entire proceedings amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. The cheque in question had already been reported lost on 12/7/2016, and stop-payment instructions were duly issued by the bank on that very date. He submits that once payment had been stopped, the cheque could never have been validly presented in December 2016, nor could it have been dishonoured on the ground of "insufficient funds." It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent no.2, in collusion with certain bank officials, misused the cheque which was already the subject of stop-payment instructions. The dishonour memo indicating "insufficient funds" is contrary to the contemporaneous record and casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the complaint.