SATISH CHAND SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing abovenumbered three applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner who is ordered to be impleaded as an accused under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act" for short) in Criminal Case No. 129/99, Criminal Case No. 127/99 and Criminal Case No. 128/99 instituted by the respondent No.2 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, against the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 has prayed to quash the abovenumbered three criminal cases lodged by the respondent No.2.

(2.) The facts emerging from all the abovenumbered three applications are common and, therefore, this Court proposes to refer to the facts of Criminal Misc. Application No. 6682/2005 for convenience, which are as under.

(3.) The respondent No.2, who is original complainant, is proprietor of Bharat Cotton Company, which is dealing in cotton bales at Surendranagar. The respondent No.3 i.e. Mr. Anil Gupta, is Director of the respondent No.4 company whereas the respondent No.4 i.e. R.P. Texfab Limited, is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent No.3 purchased cotton bales from the complainant for and on behalf of respondent No.4 Company on credit, and an amount of Rs.1 lakh was due and payable by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to the complainant. The respondent No.3 issued an account payee Cheque No. 256112 dated November 20, 1998, drawn on the Union Bank of India, Noida Branch. The complainant presented the said cheque in State Bank of India, Surendranagar Branch, on November 20.1998. The cheque was returned and dishonoured by Union Bank of India, Noida Branch, with an endorsement that "funds are insufficient". The complainant was informed about dishonour of the cheque by the State Bank of India, Surendranagar Branch, on December 15, 1998. The complainant, therefore, served a notice dated December 23, 1998 upon respondents Nos. 3 and 4 as required by Section 138 of the Act. The notices were dispatched to the respondents No. 3 and 4 by Regd. Post A.D. The claim of the complainant is that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not accept the notices with a view to avoiding service of the notices on them and, therefore, the notices were returned unserved with endorsement "addressee not traced". What is claimed by the complainant is that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 knew very well about the issuance of the notices as they had telephonic talk with the complainant but they have avoided payment of the amount due on the one pretext or the other. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 did not make payment of the amount due within 15 days from the date of notices. The complainant has, therefore, filed complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surendranagar, on February 10, 1999 and prayed the Court to convict the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.