INDERJIT SINGH BRAR Vs. SANDEEP BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of complaint No. 27 dated 13.3.2010 titled as 'Sandeep Bansal v. Inderjit Singh Brar and others' under Sections 420, 406, 409, 167, 168, 169, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and summoning order dated 12.6.2010 under Section 420 IPC passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners and respondent are having business dealings with each other. The complainant used to supply diesel to the petitioner Company against payment of money. The petitioners used to issue post dated cheques to the complainant and when the assured quality and quantity supplied to the petitioners, the cheque were honoured. A dispute arose between the petitioners and the complainant with regard to the quality anti quantity of diesel and resultantly, the payment of cheques were got stopped by the petitioners. The complainant presented the cheques in the bank. The petitioners instructed the bank to stop payment and the cheques could not be encashed. The complainant issued a notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, thereafter filed a criminal complaint under Sections 420, 406, 409 156, 168, 169, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 138, 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On the basis of this complaint, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha has summoned the petitioners to face trial vide order dated 12.6.2010 under Section 420 IPC only. Accused had issued nine cheques of Rs. 33,76,547/- with the promise that same shall be encashed. Out of this six cheques were drawn at Axis Bank, Moga and were returned to the complainant with the memo having remarks "Payment stopped by the Drawer" and the accused in connivance with each other have cheated the complainant by issuing those cheques. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate observed that the remedy for dishonour of the cheques With the complainant was under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 separately. But the complainant has not chosen to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In view of the evidence. the accused had been summoned to face trial under-Section 420 IPC only.

(3.) Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent. It has been contended that after receiving the diesel from the complainant, the petitioners issued cheques and intentionally stopped the payment in order to cause loss to the complainant. Huge quantity of diesel for lakhs of rupees was supplied. These cheques were presented. The payment of these cheques was stopped by giving directions to the bank. The petitioners with criminal intention have enticed the complainant to caught with valuable security with intention not to make payment after issuing the cheques, stopped the payment. They have been rightly summoned vide order dated 12.6.2010 to face trial under Section 420 IPC. Learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nabha after applying his judicial mind has summoned the petitioners under Section 420 IPC.