LAWS(P&H)-2001-10-27

SATISH KUMAR Vs. VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL

Decided On October 01, 2001
SATISH KUMAR Appellant
V/S
VIJAY KUMAR AGGARWAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashment of the order dated 3.4.1996 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur, whereby the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed without summoning the respondent and the judgment dated 10.12.1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner Satish Kumar filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Vijay Kumar Aggarwal. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was the proprietor of the shop known as M/s. S.K. Traders situated in Basti Mehrianwali, Ferozepur City and the respondent was also having his shop near his shop. It is further alleged that the petitioner was having dealing with the respondent and the respondent had made a demand for money for the marriage of his sister and for investment in the shop. In all he borrowed an amount of Rs. one lac from the petitioner on different occasions in the year 1994. In order to discharge his liability, he issued cheque No. 562253 dated 23.12.1994 for Rs. one lac drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, Ferozepur City, in favour of the petitioner. The said cheque was presented for encashment through Punj ab National Bank, Ferozepur City but the same was returned by the Bank of Maharashtra with the remarks that there were not sufficient funds in the drawerTs account.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter sent notice to the respondent through his counsel calling upon him to make payment of Rs. one lac within 15 days of the receipt of notice, failing which he would be constrained to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The notice was received back undelivered with the endorsement of the postment dated 11.3.1995. The respondent did not pay the amount and as such the complaint was filed.