PRADEEP KUMAR MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the two applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the Complaint Case No. C 1950 of 2010 pending before learned 10 th Judicial Magistrate, Alipore under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881. These two applications are taken up together and heard as those arise out of the same case. The petitioners have been arraigned as accused persons in the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that the petitioner M/s Orient Investments is an investment partnership firm and since 19.08.05, has been engaged in business of providing financial assistance. In course of business three cheques were issued by the accused persons duly signed with the company seal in the legal and lawful discharge of the liability. In course of business a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- was due and the accused company and the directors issued account payee cheque in the name of the complainant company drawn on State Bank of India, Kalighat Branch being Cheque No. 221975 dated 22.06.2010. The complainant deposited all the account payee cheques bearing No. 221998 dated 30.04.2010 amounting to Rs. 7,91,101/- Cheque No. 221975 dated 22.06.2010 amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/- with the Bank. Both the cheques were drawn on State Bank of India, Kalighat Branch and another account payee cheque drawn on Axis Bank Limited being Cheque No. 138236 dated 20.03.2010 amounting to Rs. 20,568/-. The said cheques were deposited with the complainant s banker Bank of Baroda, P.A.S. Branch on 30.06.2010 and the same were returned with a remark funds insufficient and the matter was intimated by the banker on 01.07.2010.

(3.) Thereafter, the complainant sent a notice under Section 138 of N.I. Act, through the learned Advocate for payment of the said amount within 15 days from the receipt of the said cheque issued by the accused persons. The said notice returned with a remark not claimed . Thereafter the accused persons on several occasions contacted the complainant s agent over telephone and assured payment within a few days, but in vain.