CHAND RATTAN NEWAR Vs. SYAM RATTAN NEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of the above mentioned five criminal Misc. petitions, having common question of law and facts.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the facts of Crl. Misc. No. 1154-M of 1993 may be noticed. Shyam Rattan complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein referred to as Act)against accused Chand Rattan Newar. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the accused is the real brother of the complainant and that a joint sitting of the complainant and the accused besides Suresh Rattan and one Prithvi chand and taken place at Sirsa in the first week of June, 1991, for resolving a dispute regarding the settlement of payment of outstanding amount by the accused to the complainant and then with the persuasion of the efforts of suresh Rattan, real brother of the complainant and the accused and also of prithvi Chand, who is a common friend and well wisher of the family, a settlement was arrived at between the complainant and the accused and in pursuance thereof the accused agreed to make the payment of the Outstanding amount of Rs. 1,38,700/- within a period of three weeks. Thereupon the accused handed over a cheque dated 25. 6. 1991 of the value of Rs. 1,38,700/-to the complainant. It was alleged that when the complainant deposited the said cheque with his Banker for payment, the same was returned back unpaid with the objection "referred to Drawer". Various other allegations were made regarding the service of notice, etc. and the non-payment of the amount by the accused to the complainant within stipulated period in spite of notice. It was accordingly prayed that the accused be summoned to face trial, etc. After the filing of the criminal complaint, the complainant produced preliminary evidence by himself appearing in the witness box as PW-1 and examining pw-2 Rattan Singh to prove the dishonour of the cheque in question. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, the learned magistrate vide order dated 27. 1. 1992 ordered the summoning of the accused for the offence under section 138 of the Act.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner submitted before me that there was no debt or liability which was to be discharged and that being so no case under Section 138 of the Act was made out. It was submitted that there was nothing on record to show that there was any legally enforceable debt or other liability, for which the cheque in question was issued.