SANGEETA PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Naqvi, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 as also the learned A.G.A. representating respondent No. 1.

(2.) The respondent No. 2 had filed a complaint against the petitioner which is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The allegations in the complaint were that the complainant had advanced a loan of Rs. 50,000.00 to the accused (petitioner) which was not returned by the accused. on making repeated demands the accused issued an Account payee cheque dated 23-1-1995. The complainant deposited the cheque with Canara Bank, Civil Lines, Bareilly for realisation of the amount and for crediting the same in the complainant's Savings Bank Account No. 7196. The accused, however, directed the bank to stop the payment. The complainant approached the accused and enquired from her about the reason for stopping the payment and he was told that the cheque was not being issued for payment of the money but it was issued only to satisfy him. The complainant thereafter served a notice as required by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The accused did not pay the money even after expiry of the period of notice. The accused thus, committed offence under Section 138 of the Act.

(3.) The learned Magistrate after recording the statements under Section 200, Cr.P.C. and 202, Cr.P.C. and perusing the material on record summoned the accused under Section 138 of the Act. The accused filed objection against summoning order mainly on the ground that the allegations contined in the complaint did not make out offence under Section 138 of the Act. The learned Magistrate rejected the objection of the accused. Thereafter a Criminal revision was filed which was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 16-10-1995.