MADHU KALRA Vs. LAVLEEN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs. Madhu Kalra, petitioner seeks quashing of complaint dated 22.7.1993 (Annexure -P.1) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrucments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by the respondent complainant against the petitioner, the summoning order dated 17.12.1993 (Annexure - P.2) passed by the sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Mansa whereby the petitioneraccused was summoned to face trial for the above offence and the subsequent proceedings taken therein.

(2.) A few facts need to be stated for the adjudication of the present petition. Partnership firm of Lavleen Kumar, complainant had been engaged in the activities of commission agent at Mansa. The said partnership firm had been carrying out the business under the name and style of M/s Hem Raj and Company of which the complainant was a partner. M/s Chirag Industries, Rajpura, firm of the petitioner accused had purchased Khal from the firm of the complainant on credit basis. A sum of Rs. 1,92,394/- was due from the firm of the accused. In order to discharge the liability, the accused issued cheque No. RAJ/T- 001496 dated 18.12.1992 for Rs. 20,000/- drawn on Central Bank of India, Rajpura in the name of the firm of the complainant. The said cheque was given to the State Bank of Patiala, Mansa, banker of the complainant for encashment. The cheque in question along with another cheque bearing No. 001497 issued by the firm was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds with the remarks "the amount of the cheque exceeds arrangement" and for that reason the same was returned by the Central Bank of India along with memo dated 16.6.1993. The State Bank of Patiala, Mansa, banker of the complainant returned the cheque in question to the complainant along with pay-in-slip dated 5.6.1993 and memo dated 16.6.1993 vide its letter dated 24.6.1993. The State Bank of Patiala, Mansa also debited Rs. 20/- as expenses in this regard in the complainant's account. After receipt of the said cheque, the complainant issued a notice dated 1.7.1993 to the accused calling upon her to make the payment but when the payment was not made, the present complaint was filed on 22.7.1993. In support of the allegations made in the complaint, complainant-Leveleen Kumar appeared as PW-1. He produced all records that is dishonoured cheque Ex.P. 1, memo Ex.P.2, intimation of dishonourment of cheque Ex.P.3, forwarding memo Ex.P.4, copy of legal notice Ex.P.5 and postal receipt Ex.P.6. Jiwan Parkash, (PW-2) partner of the firm of the complainant testified on the basis of account maintained by the firm that a sum of Rs. 1,92,394/- were due to the complainant. Sat Bhushan (PW-3), Manager of State Bank of Patiala proved the objection memo Ex.P.3 and forwarding letter Ex.P.4. Taking into account the preliminary evidence, the petitioner-accused was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Act. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) None had put in appearance on the behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the respondent.