VEDPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of instant application the applicant has approached this Court challenging the summoning order dtd. 28/10/2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 1032/09 of 2020[1] under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881[2], Police Station - Shamli, District Kairana, by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shamli at Kairana.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are; a complaint had been filed against the applicant alleging that the applicant and opposite party no. 2 were known and helped each other by means of money in case of need. Owing to the above friendship, feeling faith in applicant, opposite party no. 2 lent an amount of Rs.2,60,000.00 (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Thousand) in the month of June, 2019 with the assurance extended by the applicant that said amount will be returned to him within six months. After the passage of said period, when the opposite party no. 2 requested the applicant to return the amount, expressing inability for immediate return in cash, he gave a cheque bearing no. 880624 dtd. 30/12/2019 of Rs.2,60,000.00. The opposite party no. 2 presented the said cheque in the Bank for encashment on 4/1/2020, but the same was return with the remark 'insufficient fund', whereafter the opposite party no. 2 communicated the said fact to the applicant and on assurance given by the applicant, the opposite party no. 2 presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment in the Bank which was again returned on 23/1/2020 with the remark 'insufficient fund'. After giving a legal notice through registered post on 31/1/2020, when neither any reply was submitted nor money was paid, the present compliant has been filed, wherein the applicant has been summoned, hence the instant application has been filed by him under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid cheque was stolen by someone and has been obtained by the applicant which is being misused by him. He further submits that though the applicant does not deny the signatures on the cheque but the amount is not filled by him, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable hence is liable to be quashed.