GADADHAR BARIK Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. assailing legality and judicial propriety of order of cognizance dtd. 2/2/2011 (Annexure-3) passed in I.C.C. No.427 of 2010 by the learned S.D.J.M., Khurda on the grounds inter alia that it is not sustainable in law and therefore, liable to be quashed.

(2.) The petitioner pleaded that unless the impugned order under Annexure-3 is quashed, there would be miscarriage of justice and hence, inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The petitioner happens to be the accused in a complaint case pending before the court below for an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here-in-after referred to as 'the NI Act') which has been filed by OP No.1 alleging therein that the former had taken a hand loan of Rs.40,000.00 to meet his personal needs and when it could be paid back, on 15/5/2010, some henchmen of OP No.1 forcibly entered inside his residence and managed to obtain a cheque for an amount of Rs.40,000.00 drawn in the UCO Bank, Khurda Branch, Khurda and thereafter, presented it before the bank for encashment but it could not be honoured for insufficient funds in the account and again after five months, it was again submitted and yet dishonoured with a similar endorsement dtd. 18/10/2010.

(3.) According to the petitioner, on account of dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account, the learned court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act after it was presented for encashment once again after about five months which is not permitted under law. In fact, the only point which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is about the maintainability of the complaint for a cause of action dtd. 18/10/2010 when the cheque could not be honoured for insufficient funds on an earlier occasion.