SUNITA DUBEY Vs. HUKUM SINGH AHIRWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the grievance raised in the aforesaid two cases is identical and of similar nature, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Both the revisions have been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1974 in short the 'Code' against an order dated 17/12/2013 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge Vidisha district Vidisha (M.P.),in Criminal Revision Nos.118/2013 & 119/2013 whereby the applications of the respondents/ accused under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act were allowed by setting aside the orders of dismissal passed by the trial court dated 6/8/2013 in Criminal Case Nos. 232/12 and 475/12.

(3.) For facility of reference, the facts are being taken from Cri.Rev.No.56/14. As per the case of the petitioner/complainant, she advanced a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the respondent/accused and in turn the respondent-Hukum Singh issued a cheque No.892743 dated 12/9/2011 in favour of the complainant/petitioner drawn on State Bank of India Branch Vidisha. When the petitioner presented the said cheque at the concerning Bank same came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient fund in the account of the holder of the cheque. The complainant then issued notice to the accused, demanding payment within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice failing which the respondent/accused was liable to be prosecuted for having committed offence punishable under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but as the respondent/accused refused to pay even after receipt of the notice, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, against him.