KRISHNA GOPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the order dated 24.1.2008 and 28.2.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior, Division) Nagina District Bijnore in Complaint Case No. 822 of 2007, Satendra Kumar v. Krishna Gopal, whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution case in a short conspectus is that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint on 3.11.2007 against the applicant with the allegation that two cheques being Nos. TEL 785006 and TEL 785007 dated 15.6.2007 and 30.6.2007 for Rs. 50,000 each of Punjab National Bank Branch Bajar Kalan District Bijnore were handed over to the complainant by the applicant. The applicant had assured that the complainant will get the payment of said amount by depositing the cheques at Punjab National Bank. The aforesaid both cheques were deposited on 10.7.2007 The said cheques were dishonoured with a remark that the fund was not sufficient. The complainant went to the applicant and apprised him about the dishonour of both cheques. The applicant again assured to the complainant that on account of unavoidable circumstances, the amount could not be deposited. He may get both cheques encashed in the month of September, 2007. The complainant again deposited both the cheques on 26.9.2007 in U.P. Gramin Bank Branch Dhampur District Bijnore. Both the cheques were further returned with the remark that the fund was insufficient. The complainant thereafter gave a legal notice on 5.10.2007 through Advocate Naresh Singh Chauhan which was received by the applicant but the applicant neither gave any reply to the notice nor made the payment. In these circumstances, the opposite party No. 2 filed complaint before the court of Additional Munsif Magistrate Nagina District Bijnore. The statement of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and in support of the complainant, the statement of Ram Prakash Sisodiya and Sher Singh under Section 202, Cr.P.C. were recorded as P.W. 2 and 3. Considering the contents of the complaint and perusing the statement of the witnesses, the court below prima facie found that offence under Section 138, N.I. Act was made out against the applicant thus the Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Nagina passed the order dated 11.12.2007 summoning the applicant to face trial under Section 138, N.I. Act.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant filed application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. which came up before another Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble single Judge was pleased to pass the order dated 18.3.2008 staying the further proceedings of the aforesaid while issuing notices to the opposite party No. 2.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a partner of firm known as Sisodiya Ansari Udhyog. The said firm is engaged in purchasing the sugar from the farmers. There are four partners of the said firm viz. Krishna Gopal Singh (applicant), Smt. Santosh Kumari w/o Ram Gopal. Smt. Meena w/o Mahesh Singh and Uprendra Singh Sisodia son of Krishna Gopal Singh. The applicant and Santosh Kumari, one of the partner of the firm were authorised to issue cheques. On the fateful day, i.e., on 14.4.2007, the cheques bearing No. 985007 and 985006 were lost. The applicant immediately communicated to the Punjab National Bank about the missing of said cheques and request-was also made not to make any payment of the aforesaid cheques to any person. The said information was given to the Punjab National Bank on 18/19.4.2007. It was also averred that no transaction had taken place between the applicant and the complainant. It appears that the applicant had secured the aforesaid cheques by using fair and foul means and had misused the same by making endorsement and got the same dishonoured by the bank. False story was set up that the applicant had issued the cheques in favour of the complainant. There is no whisper in the complaint for what purpose the cheques were issued to the complainant and the payment was to be made. The basic ingredients portraying the purpose for issuance of cheques were not mentioned in the complaint. The date of service of notice was not mentioned in the complaint. The complainant had misused the lost cheques for which due information was given to the Bank. The entire prosecution story is attended with mala fide therefore, it does not sustain in the eye of law and may be vitiated in the interest of justice.