MAHESH SINGH JADON Vs. RADHA SHARAN DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition u/S.482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of the cognizance order dtd. 14/11/2019 and further proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior (M.P.) in case No.2592/2019 (Private Complaint), arising out of private complaint made u/S.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981.

(2.) The necessary facts for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner is an accused under the proceedings initiated u/S.138 of Negotiable Instrument Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gwalior (M.P.). As per the case of the complainant, a loan of Rs.11.00 lacs. has been taken in November, 2018 by the petitioner from the respondent/complainant. When the respondent/complainant asked to return of amount of Rs.11.00 lacs., then the petitioner/accused provided Rs.11.00 lacs. through Shri Rajendra Shukla S/o Shri Rameshwar Das Shukla to the complainant on 25/03/2019. After passing of two months, the respondent/complainant asked to return the money from the petitioner/accused, then the petitioner/accused gave of cheque of State of Bank of India, Branch A.D.B. Joura, District Morena bearing cheque No.909210 of account No. 34170258215 for Rs.11.00 lacs. on 15/09/2019. When the aforesaid cheque was presented by the respondent/complainant in his bank account with HDFC Bank Ltd., Branch Bahodapur on 15/09/2019 and by the memorandum of the bank dtd. 23/09/2019 bank informed to the respondent/complainant that the cheque has been dishonoured on account of "Insufficient Balance". Thereafter, as per the requirement of Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, the above complaint has been filed before the competent court of jurisdiction. After service of notice, the learned Magistrate took the cognizance and issued summons against the petitioner/accused by impugned order.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is perverse, illegal and against the settled principles of law because the cheque in dispute has been issued in the name of firm, but the case has been filed against the petitioner in the individual capacity, which cannot fulfill the requirement as contemplated u/S.141 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 and does not constitute any offence.