BHUVNESH JINDAL Vs. JANARDAN CHAUDHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the entire proceedings of complaint case no. 203 of 2010 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Gorakhnath, District - Gorakhpur pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.1, Gorakhpur. Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceeding of the aforesaid case.

(2.) Heard Shri Om Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that six blank cheques were given in lieu of fulfilling the condition for obtaining/ starting sub-dealership of the firm Ruby Trading Company at Gorakhpur. Since the said cheques were not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable liability or debt, the proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act cannot go-on against the applicant. It was further submitted that since notice sent to the applicant was not served, the complaint on this score also cannot go-on against the applicant. It was further submitted that the concerned court while passing the impugned order has placed reliance on the photocopies of the document, which is illegal. Referring to the provisions of Section 65 of the Evidence act, it was submitted that photocopies cannot be taken as piece of evidence in any matter. It was next submitted that notice, which was not served personally upon the applicant, will not be deemed to be legal notice, hence essential ingredients to initiate proceeding under Section 138 of the aforesaid Act were not available. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following decisions of this Court and Delhi High Court: