NAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with following prayer:-

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(3.) Factual matrix of the case in brief are that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint which is registered as Case No. 496 of 2022 (Smt. Shashi Sharma Vs. M/s Naveen Auto and Another), under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahar with averment that complainant and respondent no. 2 are working in a partnership firm in the name of M/s Naveen Auto at Raje Babu road, Bulandshahar. Complainant and respondent no. 2, both are partners in the firm. This firms deals in business of TVS bike spare parts and repairing etc. In the profits of firm, share of complainant is 30%, share of wife of respondent no. 2 is 30%, share of respondent no. 2 is 20% and share of Uma Sharma is 20 %. The responden no. 2 has been directed to transact the business on behalf of the firm, however, for last three years no profit was given to the complainant and she was avoided by respondent no. 2 in respect of affairs of the firm. When she negotiated with respondent no. 2, he asked her to terminate her relations with the firm and this was agreed between the complainant and partners of the firm that Rs.3,00,000, 00.00 will be given to the complainant in lieu of her 30% share and profits. This was also agreed between partners that until Rs.3,00,000,00.00 is paid to the complainant, she would keep on receiving the profits and on that count a cheque of Rs.90,00,000.00 was issued by the firm in favour of the complainant dtd. 15/6/2022 which was signed by respondent no. 2 as authorized signatory of the firm. This cheque was drawn on Canara Bank account of the firm. The complainant presented the cheque on same day at his Bank PNB, Yamunaparm Branch Bulandhshar on her bank account, however, the same was dishnoured and returned on 20/7/2022 with endorsement "account blocked", thus consequently the cheque got bounced. When she asked about this to respondent no. 2, he could not give any satisfactory answer and misbehaved with her. She sent a demand notice on 25/7/2022 at his address which was received by him on 28/7/2022, however, its wrong reply was sent by them on 2/8/2022, therefore, complainant had no option but to file present complaint for prosecution of the firm and respondent no. 2 for charge under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.