AMRITPAL SINGH Vs. RAHUL AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused has filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C) for setting aside order dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in COMA No. 2589 of 2014 titled as "Rahul Ahuja Vs. Amritpal Singh" filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') whereby application filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for converting the trial of the above mentioned complaint case from summons case to warrant case was dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that the respondent-complainant filed above said complaint on the averments that the petitioner-accused executed agreement to sell dated 01.11.2013 agreeing to sell the property described therein for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,25,00,000/- by furnishing power of attorney from Krishan Singh Jagdev, owner of l/3rd share and having authority and consent of Kovalam Investment and Trading Company Limited, owner of 2/3rd share, to sell the property. The petitioner-accused received amount of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- from the respondent-complainant and on his instructions amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- was paid to Kovalam Investment and Trading Company Limited. The Sale Deed was to be executed on or before 15.12.2013. The petitioner-accused agreed to pay total amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/- (Rs. 5,25,00,000/- as refund of earnest money and Rs. 25,00,000/- as damages) in case of his failure to get the Sale Deed executed by 15.12.2013 and also issued post dated cheque dated 16.12.2013. Since the petitioner-accused failed to get the sale deed executed, the respondent-complainant presented the cheque. The petitioner-accused in connivance with the Bank got the cheque dishonoured vide memo dated 26.02.2014 with the remarks "DRAWERS SIGNATURES DIFFERS" whereas there was no sufficient balance in his account. The respondent-complainant served legal notice dated 22.03.2014 to which the petitioner-accused sent reply dated 05.04.2014. Preliminary evidence of the respondent-complainant was recorded and the petitioner-accused was summoned to face trial. During pendency of the trial, the petitioner-accused filed application under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for converting of the trial from summons case to warrant case which was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide impugned order dated 01.10.2019.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-accused has filed the present petition.