RANJIT RAY Vs. PUKHARAJ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners call in question the propriety of the order taking cognizance in I. C. C. No. 91/94 under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 by the learned SDJM, Bhubaneswar; and also pray for quashing of the proceeding in its entirety.

(2.) THE essential facts giving rise to the present petition are enumerated hereunder.

(3.) THE Opposite party instituted a complaint case alleging that the petitioners-company, namely, Animal Feeds Dairies and Chemicals Ltd. , and its Managing Director were carrying on business transaction with the opposite party-firm and were purchasing various types of raw materials for preparation of cattle and poultry feeds and there was good understanding and the business transaction was high. The petitioners were given credit by the opposite party-firm. In the process, Rs. 5,21,142. 23 remained outstanding against the petitioners as on 31. 3. 1994. In spite of repeated reminders, when the amount in question was not paid, ultimately petitioner No. 1, the Managing director of the company gave 15 cheques amounting to Rs. 1,10,000/- and assured that the cheques would be cleared by the Bank as soon as it was presented. Six of the cheques amounting to Rs. 54. 000/- were deposited on 31. 3. 1994 for collection, but the same were returned to the banker of the complainant on intimation that "payment stopped". On receipt of such intimation from the Bank, the complainant issued notice to the petitioners through his Counsel by registered post with A/d. In spite of the valid notice on opposite party No. 2 on 11. 4. 1994, no amount was paid. The notice on petitioner No. 1 was returned with endorsement by the Postal department "addressee was not available, returned to sender". Thereafter the complainant personally went to the office of the Managing Director on 29. 4. 1994 and requested him to receive the written notice, but he declined to receive the same stating that reply of the notice to the company has already been given by their Counsel. However, on 29. 4. 1994, a reply was received by the complainant from the advocate of the petitioner No. 2 that they had instructed the Bank to stop payment and that was a justified action. With these allegations, the complainant instituted the complaint case contending, inter alia, that an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420, I. PC. has been committed by the present petitioners.