BHARAT TRADING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The compendium of the facts, which need a necessary mention, for deciding the core controversy involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record, is that M/s Somany Ceramics Limited complainant-respondent No. 2 (for short "the complainant-company") filed a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) against the petitioners-accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"), inter-alia, pleading that petitioner- accused No. 1, through its partners accused Nos. 2 and 3, on the basis of the authority vested in them, approached the complainant-company and purchased the goods on various occasions. But they did not make the payment of the price of the goods. On 13.9.2008, a sum of Rs. 14,32,305/-was found to be due, which they were legally bound to pay to complainant-company. They issued cheque bearing No. 178614 dated 13.9.2008 to discharge their legal liability of the indicated amount. The complainant-company claimed that on 16.9.2008, it deposited the cheque in its account for encashment with the Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, Bahadurgarh Branch. But ultimately, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank on 26.9.2008. When confronted in this respect, then the accused requested the complainant-company to again present the cheque and assured that the same shall be honoured. As such no notice was issued by the complainant-company against the first dishonour of the cheque. As per request made by the petitioners-accused, the complainant-company again presented the cheque on 9.12.2008 in its account for encashment with the indicated Punjab National Bank, but the same was again dishonoured with the remarks "Account Closed". Thereupon the Punjab National Bank intimated the complainant-company about the re-dishonour of the cheque, vide intimation letter dated 30.12.2008. Thereafter, the complainant-company served a legal notice of demand dated 3.1.2009, but the accused did not make the payment of the aforesaid amount despite service of legal notice in this relevant connection.

(2.) Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the complainant-company that since the cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured and they (petitioners-accused) did not make the payment despite legal notice, so, the complainant-company filed the complaint (Annexure P1) against them, in the manner described here-in-above.

(3.) The trial Court recorded the preliminary oral as well as documentary evidence. After taking into consideration the material on record, the trial Magistrate summoned the petitioners-accused to face the trial under Section 138 of the Act, by virtue of summoning order dated 28.2.2009 (Annexure P2).