VEENA SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri U.K. Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anshul Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri D.K. Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vikram D. Chauhan, learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 and Sri G.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the summoning order dated 20.2.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 42 of 2012 (Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs. Smt. Veena Singhal) praying that the said summoning order be quashed.

(3.) As per the complaint, the facts of the case are that opposite party no. 2, Sanjay Kumar Gupta (partner M/s Archna Traders) is an Income-tax payee and is partner in M/s. Archna Traders, which deals in sale of spare part of the crusher. The accused-applicant has a crusher situated in Gora Machhiya by the name Gangotri Granite. The accused-applicant and her husband have been purchasing spare parts of crusher from the Company of opposite party no. 2 and had good business relationship. On 7.12.2012, accused-applicant had purchased few spare parts of the crusher comprising of a total amount of Rs. 36,67,028/- and the accused-applicant had assured that payment would be made within one or two days. The accused-applicant being old acquintance, the opposite party no. 2 agreed to sell those articles on credit and the accused-applicant went away after taking the spare parts. On 12.12.2012, applicant came to the Office of Archna Traders and provided a Cheque No. 323113 bearing Account No. 10657584358 of the amount of Rs. 36,67,028/- which was issued in the name of M/s. Archna Traders and then she went away. The opposite party no. 2 presented the said cheque in his SBI Bank, Medical College Branch, Jhansi, which was returned without making payment on 14.12.2012 disclosing reasons in column no. 16 "insufficient funds", thus the said cheque got dishonoured, whereafter opposite party no. 2 sent a registered notice through his counsel on correct address of the applicant on 22.12.2012, 24.12.2012, 26.12.2012, 27.12.2012 and lastly it was refused from being taken on 28.12.2012. Thereafter, accused-applicant told opposite party no. 2 on phone-call as to why notice was sent and that demand would soon be met. It was mentioned in the said notice that if cheque amount was not paid within fifteen days, the opposite party no. 2 would be at liberty to file case in competent court. Due to non payment of the said amount within the prescribed time, the present complaint has been moved.