(1.) PREM Parkash accused-petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of Cr. PC for quashing the complaint Annexure PI and the order of summoning Annexure P4 of the trial Court for an offence under Section 420 IPC inter alia on the ground that the trial court has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case while summoning the accused to face the trial for the above referred offence and that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute a criminal liability but the dispute is purely of a civil nature. This petition was admitted on the point of non-application of mind by the trial court to. the facts and circumstances of the case while summoning the accused vide order dated 14-5-90.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) THE question then arises whether the evidence of Surinder Kumar complainant if taken as a whole would justify in concluding that ex-facie case is made out against the accused for an offence under Section 420 IPC. In this regard, it is noteworthy that Surinder Kumar had deposed that the accused firm through its partner Prem Parkash present petitioner had purchased some goods worth Rs. 62065.15 on 24-10-88 and issued three post dated cheques, one of these post-dated cheques was dishonoured when presented to the bank with the remarks that there are no funds in the account of the accused. The complainant then contacted the accused who in lieu of the previous cheques had issued one cheque to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- besides undertaking to issue other cheques for the remaining amount lateron. It is mentioned in para 8 of the complaint that this cheque of Rs. 10,000/- was encashed.