RADHEY SHYAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri M.L. Jain, learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. None present for the opposite party no.2.

(2.) THIS criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 31.10.2005 passed by Ist A.C.J.M., Agra in Criminal Complaint No.1648 of 2005 (Mubarak Ali Vs. Sukhram and others), under Section 138 N.I. Act, summoning the revisionists under Section 138 N.I. Act.

(3.) THE brief facts relating to the case are that the opposite party no.2 filed a Complaint Case No.1648 of 2005 against Sukhram, Radhey Shyam, Sameer Raza and Branch Manager of Canara Bank, Agra under Sections 138 N.I. Act and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. with the allegation that the complainant was owner of plot measuring 100 sq. yards out of Gata No.272 vide sale deed dated 25.2.1993 and later on a dispute arose between the complainant and opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 which was settled by way of compromise deed dated 17.2.2005; that according to the compromise, the opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 had to pay Rs.30,000/ - to the complainant upon which he had to give vacant possession towards the disputed part of land in his possession; that accused -opposite parties no.1 and 2 jointly issued cheque for Rs.15,000/ - on 2.4.2005 and opposite party no.3 issued another cheque for Rs.15,000/0 to the claimant but both the cheques were dishonoured hence the complainant served the legal notice on the opposite parties and the complaint is filed within time. The learned magistrate after recording the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. passed the impugned order issuing process against the accused -opposite parties no.1, 2 and 3 taking cognizance against them under Section 138 N.I. Act and held that no case under Sections 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. is made out against the opposite party no.4 the Branch Manager of the Bank.