MOHAMMAD INAM AHMAD Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant application has been moved by accused Mohd. Inam Ahmad under Sec. 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the orders dated 2/2/2002 and 19/8/2002 whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Aligarh, summoned the applicant and subsequently issued non-bailable warrant in Criminal Case No. 1342 of 2001, Rajendra Kumar Varshaney v. Mohd. Inam Ahmad, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) Heard Sri M. P. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant, Mohd. Inam Ahmad, learned AGA and Sri S. P. Singh, learned counsel for the O. P. No. 3, Rajendra Kumar Varshaney.

(3.) The fact as revealed from the record is that according to O. P. No. 3, Rajendra Kumar Varshney, two cheques Nos. 085194 and 085195 dated 12-11-2000 amounting to Rs.29,953.75 and Rs. 50000.00 payable at Branch of Vijaya Bank, 13/6, G. T. Road, Aligarh, were issued by the applicant Mohd. Inam Ahmad in favour of O. P. No. 3, Rajendra Kumar Varshney, in the course of business transaction but the said cheques were dishonoured by Vijaya Bank due to deficiency of the amount in the account on 12-11-2000. The complainant O. P. No. 3 sent legal notice on 25-11-2000 by registered post and thereafter filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court, No. 4, Aligarh, bearing case No. 1342 of 2001, Rajendra Kumar Varshney v. Mohd. Inam Ahmad, under Section 138 of the Act, police station Delhi Gate, Aligarh. True copies of the legal notice and complaint are annexed as Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the application. After examination of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Aligarh, where the case was subsequently transferred, summoned the applicant under Section 138 of the Act by order dated 2-2-2000, copy of which is Annexure No.3 to the application. When the applicant accused did not appear the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate issued non-bailable warrant on 19-8-2002. According to the applicant he purchased brass worth Rs. 29,953.75 vide bill No. 21/96-97 and gave an undated cheque No. 085914 of the amount and another undated cheque No. 085915 amounting to Rs.50,000.00 as advance was also issued. There was no agreement between the parties in respect of interest. The complainant O. P. No. 3 did not deliver the brass to the applicant on 2-12-1996 worth Rs. 52,229.20 vide bill No. 52 of 96-97. The applicant issued undated cheque to the O. P. No. 3 due to negligence. Thus the act of the complainant is mala fide. Copies of both the cheques are Annexures 4 and 5 to the application. According to the applicant, the O. P. No. 3 did not comply with the requirement of Section 142(b) of the Act, which requires that the complaint must be made within one month from the date when the cause of action arose as contemplated under proviso clause (c) of Section 138 of the Act. It is stated that Vijaya Bank refused the aforesaid cheques on 14-11-2000 and complaint was filed on 21-12-2000. Thus the provisions of Sec. 142 (b) of the Act is not complied with. Besides it while issuing summons and warrant the complainant did not furnish the list of witnesses as required by Section 204(2) of Cr. P. C. On this ground the application has been moved before this Court to set aside the order through which the accused applicant was summoned and subsequently non-bailable warrant was issued against him. Impliedly the applicant wants to quash the proceedings of the case due to non-compliance of the provisions of the Act.