ICICI BANK LIMITED Vs. JASWINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of Complaint No. 89 of 05.04.2003/2005 titled as 'Jaswinder Singh v. ICICI Bank Limited' (Annexure P-1) pending in the Court of JMIC, Amritsar and the summoning order dated 18.07.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar (Annexure P-6).

(2.) THE aforementioned complaint was filed by the respondent before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar on 05.04.2003. As per the complaint, the complainant got financed one TVS Victor bike on dated 04.05.2002 from the accused bank ICICI Bank Limited, Branch Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar through the accused No. 4 and during the formalities of finance, the complainant issued post dated cheques out of his account with Punjab and Sing Bank, Chowk Parag Dass, Amritsar as per the demand of the accused and thereafter the delivery of the bike was taken from Universal. After making the payment, the complainant approached the accused No. 4 for the purpose to get the clearance certificate and to return the remaining post dated cheques issued against the finance of the TVS Victor bike and the accused No. 3 informed the complainant to get his documents after a week. But even after a week accused No. 4 failed to supply clearance certificate as well as return the post dated cheques to the complainant. THE complainant also got financed another LML Freedom from the accused banker through accused No. 4 and was paying regular instalments against the said bike. But the complainant got surprised when he came to know that his cheque issued for the repayment of the loan as instalment of LML Freedom bike was dishonoured and upon that the complainant enquired about the whole matter and came to know that the accused banker was remain getting the cheque encashed issued against TVS Victor, for which the complete full and final payment has already been made to the accused. THEreafter, the complainant also served legal notice upon all the accused through his counsel on dated 24.02.2003 and again on dated 04.03.2003 respectively. But the accused paid no heed to the genuine requests of the complainant and even after the service of the legal notice dated 24.02.2003, the accused got encashed the cheques wilfully and dishonestly.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, vehemently argued that the conduct of the Bank was dishonest as it got the cheque encashed in spite of knowing that there was no liability upon the complainant/respondent to pay the same. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that the present petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed on behalf of the Bank whereas, no summoning order has been passed against the Bank.