E V PRASAD Vs. BABULAL U MUNOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Writ Petition is filled by the petitionrs-original accused, being aggrieved by the order of issuance of process, dated 10th March, 1992, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 4th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners.

(2.) I have heard both the Advocates. I have also perused the proceedings. It appears that complaint came to be filed by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the indian Penal Code. The case of the complainant was that in pursuance to the purchase order dated 7th September, 1991, and instructions placed by the accused with the complainant the complainant sold and delivered to the accused, the goods viz. , metal goods of the total value of Rs. 2. 09, 647. 20 under their 7 bills as mentioned in para 2 of the said complaint.

(3.) THE complainant's case further is that he furnished the said bills to the accused, which were duly received, retained, accepted and acted upon by the accused. The goods were thus sold. Supplied and delivered by the complainant to the accused. Thereafter four cheques viz. , (1) Cheque No. 181372 dated 7-10-1991 for Rs. 38,000/-, (2) Cheque No. 18173 dated 20-10-1991 for Rs. 50,000/-, (3)Cheque No. 181374 dated 25-10-1991 for Rs. 27,000/-and (4) cheque No. 181375 dated 1-11-1991 for Rs. 80,000/-, were issued by the petitioners-accused to the complainant. All these cheques were post dated, which came to be dishonoured by the Bank on 28th November, 1991, though they were duly presented. Even another personal cheque sent by petitioner No. 2 being cheque drawn on State Bank of hyderabad on 15th November, 1991, also was dishonoured. Thereafter all the formalities were complied with by the complainant. However, there was no response from the petitioners and thereafter complaint came to be filed by the complainant being Case No. 70/s of 1992 in the Court of the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate. 4th Court, Girgaum on 13th February, 1992. The learned magistrate, after taking cognizance of the complaint. Issued process. It is against this order that the petitioners approached this Court for quashing the order of issuance of process.