MEHTA PRAFULCHANDRA KALIDAS Vs. PATEL CHELJIBHAI KALIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. Shrikar H. Bhatt, learned advocate appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.1 whereas Mr. HM Prachchhak, learned App appears and waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent No.2 " State of Gujarat.

(2.) By instant Criminal Revision Application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code' for short), the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 11.4.2005 recorded below application Ex.6, in Criminal Case No. 865 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Idar, by which the proceedings of complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1 for commission of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('the Act' for short) has been ordered to be stopped under Section 258 of the Code and respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Act and also notice under Section 250 of the Code has been issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why compensation of Rs.5,000/- should not be awarded from him to respondent No.1 for abuse of process of court in filing false complaint.

(3.) As per the case of the petitioner, he has filed criminal complaint being Criminal Case No.865 of 2004 in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Idar against respondent No.1/accused for commission of alleged offence under Section 138 of the Act. As per the case of the petitioner, respondent No.1 had purchased some ornaments from the jewellery shop of the petitioner on 15.4.2004 and he was liable to pay Rs.1,40,000/- to the petitioner for purchasing the said ornaments. Respondent No.1 had, upon the demand of the said amount, issued a cheque dated 15.5.2004 for Rs.1,40,000/- drawn on Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank, Kanpur. The said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The petitioner, therefore, had given a notice by Registered Post A.D. And U.P.C. through advocate on 28.5.2004. Respondent No.1 had, instead of paying the amount of the cheque within 15 days from the receipt of the notice, given an evasive reply to the notice and therefore the petitioner was constrained to file the complaint against respondent No.1 for commission of the alleged offence under Section 138 of the Act.