KARISHMA CONSULTANT Vs. OM PRAKASH AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The group of above noted applications filed by original accused persons for quashing of criminal complaint case Under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is being decided together in as much as identical questions of law and facts are involved therein:

(2.) The applicants are the proprietary business concern and proprietor, respectively who had certain transactions with the respondent No. 1 (Complainant). Devang Desai was husband of the applicant No. 2 and was duly authorized to issue cheques for and on behalf of the applicants. There is no dispute about the fact that he issued five cheques in question towards discharge of financial liability which the applicants were supposed to discharge. There is also no dispute about the fact that the said five cheques were dishonoured by the UCO Bank when they were presented for encashment. The UCO Bank returned the cheques to the respondent No. 1 (Complainant) with intimation that the cheques could not be honoured due to insufficiency of the funds in the account of the applicants. There is also no dispute about the fact that the cheques were issued on Bank account of the applicants.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 had issued demand notice in the context of the five criminal cases. That notice was replied by the applicants. The tenor of the reply was that the signatory of the cheques i.e. Devang Desai had died on 1st May 1996 before the presentation of the cheques in the Bank and as such, the cheques were no more valid instruments. It was also stated in the reply notice that the intimation was duly given to the Bank about the death of Devang Desai, yet the Bank had wrongly endorsed that the cheques could not be honoured due to insufficiency of the funds in the account.