DEEPAK GOEL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. This 482, Cr.P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2120 of 2011 under Section 138, N.I. Act, Police Station, Sadar Bazar, Meerut, District Meerut, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M., Court No. 6, Meerut.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by Sanjay Agarwal-opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against the applicant alleging that on 4.12.2004, the applicant alongwith his uncle, namely, Sri P.D. Agarwal had come to the shop of the complainant and purchased some items for his house such as plywood, mica etc. after making the payment of the same went away. Thereafter, on 14.12.2004, the applicant alongwith his uncle Sri P.D. Agarwal again came to the shop of complainant and purchased some goods for his house amounting to Rs. 2,25,106 out of which Rs. 106 was paid by him in cash and for remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 2,25,000 he has given Cheque No. 250468 dated 15.12.2004 of the H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. in the presence of his uncle P.D. Agarwal and one Aman Gupta and had stated that the said cheque would be encashed on the presentation before the bank. On 15.12.2004, when complainant was going to place the said cheque for its encashment, the uncle of the applicant P.D. Agarwal had asked him on phone not to place the said cheque for encashment as the applicant does not have sufficient fund in his account and further asked him to place the said cheque in March, 2005 for encashment. Thereafter, the complainant produced the said cheque through its banker on 1.3.2005 for encashment but the same was dishonoured by the concerned bank and a memo. dated 5.3.2005 was sent with an endorsement that payment was stopped by the drawer. When the said cheque was dishonoured, the complainant gave a notice to the applicant through his counsel on 19.3.2005 which was replied by the applicant through his counsel on 24.3.2005, hence the present complaint has been filed by complainant alleging that the applicant has no Intention to pay the amount in question and has deliberately issued the cheque in question on 15.12.2004 and gave a false advertisement in the newspaper that his cheque has been lost.

(3.) In the present complaint, the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the complainant and Sri P.D. Agarwal-uncle of the applicant and one Aman Gupta under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and after having found prima facie case against the applicant summoned him by passing the impugned order, hence the present application.