SHRIRAM RAIKWAR Vs. LAXMINARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashment of private complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short " the NIA"), wherein the learned trial Court vide order dated 19.09.2019 has taken cognizance.

(2.) It is alleged by counsel for the petitioner that the complainant and respondent is known to each other. In the year 2012, on the request made by one Awadnarayan Sharma for getting a limit in the name of Vikas Trading Company as the parties are known to each other. Therefore, the limit got executed by the petitioner in the name of Vikas Trading Company Proprietor Shriram Raikwar and Mr. Awadnarayan Sharma was made a guarantor and his house was kept as mortgage as a guaranty. In the limit on Account No.32572011117, cheque book containing 100 cheques were issued. It is the case of petitioner that the cheque was stolen and taking advantage of fact that the some cheques were already signed by the petitioner the same was put to clearance in the bank. He has lodged the complaint for stop payment of cheque as the same was lost or stolen but the cheque was dishonoured and on the basis of which private complaint has been filed. It is alleged that taking advantage of the fact that the petitioner was known to the respondent and was having faith on the respondent, he has got open for limit in the name of his company and the cheques were already signed by him and the same are being misused by the respondent. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the case under Section 138 of the NIA has wrongly been registered against the present applicant. Learned trial Court without considering the aspect has taken cognizance in the matter. Therefore, the present petition is being filed for quashment of cognizance order as well as the complaint.

(3.) From perusal of the document filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the cheque in question is duly signed by the petitioner. It is alleged that learned trial Court while dismissing the order of taking cognizance has also directed for deposition of 20% of the cheque amount which is contrary to the provision as there is no provision of deposition of 20% of the amount of dishonoured instrument. He is ready to face the entire trial but prays for deletion of condition of 20% of the amount. It is alleged that he is unnecessarily facing the trial under Section 138 of the NIA and on the other hand the additional liability of 20% towards the amount be deposited in the trial Court. He prays for setting aside the condition of 20% amount which was imposed by the trial Court.