NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner Naresh Kumar who is facing the trial in Criminal Case No. 419 of 2003, under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate I, Haridwar.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by one Ramji Das Agarwal/respondent No. 3 against the petitioner stating therein that the petitioner on the false pretext that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was due towards the petitioner and in lieu of that he issued the advanced cheque for Rs. 5,000/- be longing to Oriental Bank of Commerce Ltd. in favour of the respondent No. 3 but when the cheque was produced before the Bank, it was returned unpaid due to insufficient fund. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 sent a registered notice to the petitioner on 04.07.2001 through advocate and after receiving the notice, the petitioner apologized and assured that after 4-5 days again when the cheque will be presented", it will be honoured. The respondent No. 3 Ramji Das Agarwal/complainant again produced the cheque on 26.07.2001, but it was dishonoured again. The Bank intimated with regard to this on 28.07.2001, there after the complainant met with petitioner Naresh Kumar at his house but he refused to pay the money back. The complainant thereafter sent the registered notice again on 31.07.2001 and this notice was not accepted by the petitioner, hence, the complaint was filed by the complainant/respondent No. 3 on 24.08.2001. After filing the complaint the statement of complainant was recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, statements of witnesses were also recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The court below thereafter on 12.02.2002 passed the order that prima facie case against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act is made out and directed the petitioner to appear before the Court for facing the trial.

(3.) NONE has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in spite of sufficient service of notice. Therefore, heard Sri Lalit Miglani, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the record.