JAI AMBEY AGRO CENTRE Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of respondent no.1 has been accepted by Sri Prabhakar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. Issue notice to respondent no.2 returnable within three weeks.

(2.) Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no liability on the petitioner to pay any debt or amount to the complainant. Cheque in question was issued as the security. He placed reliance on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in the matter of Uplanche Mallikarjun and others Vs. Rat Kanti Vimala, 1997 CRLJ 4237. In this Case (supra) Andhra Pradesh High Court has observed that if cheque is given not for the purpose of discharging any debt or other liability maker is not liable for prosecution.

(3.) Considering the arguments and having perused the record, I direct that operation and effect of order dated 06.10.2009 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Khatima Distt: U.S. Nagar in Criminal Complaint Case no. 708/2009 Vipin Mittal Vs. Jai Ambey Agro Centre shall remain stay till further orders of this Court.