SWAROOP SINGH DANGI Vs. RAJEEV KASHIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal writ petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Criminal procedure Code and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extra ordinary inherent powers of this Court and praying for quashing the process issued against the petitioner by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Case No.121/S of 1993.

(2.) HAVING regard to the merits of the case, it is the case of the petitioner that the alleged offence is punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act. In fact, no offence is committed under the said Section. It is submitted that on 27th September 1992 one Suresh Mehta and his associates after forcibly getting fabricated three cheques in the name of one Rajiv Kashikar drawn on State Bank of India Bhandup Branch. Forced the petitioner to sign the said cheques as proprietor of Asian Electric Works and also obtained a covering letter from the petitioner stating therein that the amount had been given as a friendly loan to the petitioner and that the petitioner was repaying the same. It has been submitted that on the very next day 28th September 1992 the petitioner had narrated the incident to Bhandup Police Station by making a complaint. On this complaint, the Bhandup Police had asked State Bank of India. Bhandup Branch Authorities to stop payment in respect of the three cheques, details of which have been given to the Bank. It has been further submitted that on 29th March 1993 the petitioner received a notice from the advocates on behalf of their client Rajiv Kashikar stating that one of the cheques issued by him has been dishonoured and the petitioner was requested to make the said payment within 15 days. Failing which a criminal complaint will be filed against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the present case has been filed against the petitioner in the Magistrate Court. It is, therefore, submitted that no offence has been committed by the petitioner under section 138 of the said Act and on that ground the process issued against him requires to be quashed and set aside.

(3.) IN support of his aforesaid contention the learned Counsel has relied on two authorities viz..a ruling of the Supreme Court in Nirmaljit Singh Noon vs. The State of West Bengal and another reported in (1973) 3 Supreme Court cases 753; and another ruling in Suresh Mohanlal Goradia Vs. Hiralal G. Thakkar & others reported in 1989 (1) Bombay cases Reporter 117. The Supreme Court in Nirmaljit's case supra has observed thus:-