AVNEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the prosecution of the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act) and summoning order dated 16.2.2004 and the order rejecting the protest petition dated 11.4.2005.

(2.) THE grounds for challenging the said proceedings and order were that as a matter of fact the applicant had made payment on different dates in respect of the bounced cheque. This contention is mentioned in para graphs 4 and 5 of the applicant's application. Whether the applicant has or has not made the requisite payment is a question of fact which can only be considered by the Trial Court and cannot be considered in the present proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE next submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicant is contained in paragraph 7 of the supplementary affidavit to the effect that no notice was given under section 138(b) of the Act to the company as well as to the applicant requiring them to make payment on the defaulted amount. As I have held above that it was not imperative for the complainant to make the company an accused, hence there was no question of serving notice on the company. So far as the applicant is concerned, it is clearly mentioned in the complaint itself that the notice was given to the applicant on 18.12.2003 to make the payment of the amount in respect of which the cheque has remained unencashed. Whether or not this notice was in fact given is a matter to be in- vestigated by the Trial Court and not this Court in proceedings under section 482 Cr.RC.