GURU NANAK ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. HARJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER seeks quashing of complaint dated 14. 12. 1996, Annexure P-l, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the summoning order and the consequential proceedings arising out of that complaint.

(2.) A few facts need to be noticed in order to focus the controversy involved in the present petition.

(3.) PETITIONER, M/s. Guru Nanak Engineering Works through its partner Gurmail singh had issued cheque bearing no. 298418 dated 25. 6. 1996 for Rs. 1,58,000/-in the name of complainant Harjinder Singh, drawn on Punjab National Bank, dhuri Branch, District Sangrur, to discharge the liability of debt. At that time petitioner-accused had assured the complainant that he was having sufficient amount in the bank and that on presentation the cheque would be encashed. The complainant then presented the afore-said cheque through his bankers, namely, Punjab and Sind Bank, Salem Tabri Branch, Ludhiana, for encashment but the same was returned with the remarks "insufficient funds" and intimation in that regard was sent to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Salem Tabri Branch, ludhiana, as per Memo Dated 20. 9. 1996 thereafter, the complainant contacted the petitioner-accused and informed about the dishonouring of the cheque by his banker, upon which the accused told him that he should present the cheque again in the last week of October, 1996 and assured him that then the same would be encashed. Complainant presented the cheque to his bankers for encashment but it was again dishonoured and returned with the remarks "insufficient funds" and intimation in that regard was received from the Punjab and Sind Bank, Salem Tabri Branch, Ludhiana, on 9. 11. 1996. Thereafter complainant through his counsel got served registered notice dated 14. 11. 1996 upon the petitioner-accused, calling upon him to pay the amount of dishonoured cheque within a period of 15 days but the said notice was received back undelivered with the remarks "despite visits time and again, did not meet at the house". Then the complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed and the learned magistrate summoned the petitioner-accused to face trial for committing the offence under Section 138 of the Act. It is under these circumstances that the present petition was filed.