J S INTERNATIONAL Vs. PICRIC LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. PC. , filed by the accused petitioner seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that complainant-respondent M/s. Picric Limited filed a criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, under Section 138 of the Act, and under Section 420 IPC against accused petitioners. M/s. J. S. International and Joginder Singh, proprietor of M/s. J. S. International. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the complainant was doing the business of sale of rice and that during the course of said business complainant supplied rice to the accused and in lieu thereof, accused made part payment of Rs. 2.50 lacs, vide cheque dated 23-7-1996, in favour of the complainant. It was alleged that when the said cheque was deposited for encashment, the same was received back dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by the drawer" on 1-2-1997. It was alleged that after receiving the dishonoured cheque, the complainant requested the accused for the payment of the said amount along with interest but he did not pay any heed. It was alleged that the complainant sent legal notice to the accused through his counsel on 1-2-1997, which was got issued by the complainant to the accused petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. Annexure P1/A is the copy of the statement made by PW1 Mohinder Kumar, bank officer with regard to the dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 23-7-1996. He stated that the said cheque was presented on 20-1-1997 and that it was returned back with the remarks that the payment had been stopped by the drawer.

(3.) In the present petition under Section 482 Cr. PC. , filed by the accused petitioner, it has been alleged that the cheque in question was time barred because it was presented after the expiry of the period of its validity, as would be clear from the statement Annexure P1/2. It was further alleged that Jatinder Vardhan, Personnel Manager of complainant company. M/s. Piric Limited, was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the company. It was alleged that the complainant has supplied rice to the accused and the accused had made the payment for Rs. 2.50 lacs vide cheque dated 23.7.1996. It was alleged that the accused had sent letter to the complainant that if the dispute regarding quality and rate of the broken rice was not settled, he would write to the banker to stop the payment. It was alleged that a number of letters were exchanged between the parties for the settlement of the dispute between them and that subsequently civil dispute between the parties was settled. It was alleged that no offence under Section 138 of the Act, was made out against the accused petitioners.