URJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) URJIT Singh petitioner seeks quashing of complaint dated 5. 3. 1991 (Annexure-P1) filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") as amended by the banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 read with Sections 417, 418 and 420 IPC, summoning order dated 19. 12. 1991 (Annexure-P2) and the subsequent proceedings taken therein.

(2.) URJIT Singh, Director and A. P. Singh, Managing Director of M/s. Hotel nidhi Private Limited, Dehradun had availed the facility of overdraft from the punjab and Sindh Bank, Nabha. A criminal case was registered in this regard with Central Bureau of Investigation. A sum of Rs. 9,04, 853. 03 were found due from the aforesaid persons. A compromise was effected by the above named accused with the complainant for the payment of the aforesaid amount. It was agreed between them that the liability shall be discharged by the accused by paying Rs. 30,000/- per month. In terms of the agreement petitioner-accused had issued five cheques No. CP/62/029658 dated 17. 5. 1990 for Rs. 30,0007-No, 029659 dated 17. 6. 1990 for Rs. 30,000/- No. 029660 dated 17. 7. 1990 for Rs. 30,000/- No. 029661 dated 17. 8. 1990 for Rs. 30,000/- and No. 029662 dated 17. 9. 1990 for Rs. 30,000/- drawn in favour of Punjab and Sindh Bank, madhuban Hotel, Dehradun Branch as the accused had Account No. 485 with the said bank at Dehradun. The cheques were sent for encashment to the Branch of the complainant bank at Dehradun on 22. 9. 1990 but the same were returned with the memo dated 12. 1. 1991 which was received by the complain-ant on 24. 1. 1991, In the memo it was stated "refer to drawer" (to be asked from the payee) which means that the amount found credited in Account No. 485 of the petitioner with the Dehradun Branch of the aforesaid bank was not sufficient to encash the cheques. As the complainant had been defrauded by the accused notice dated 7. 2. 1991, as required under Section 138 of the Act, was served upon the accused but the same was ignored by the accused. Thereafter, the present complaint was instituted in the Court of learned Judicial magistrate 1st Class, Nabha.

(3.) IN support of the allegations made in the complaint, two witnesses were examined by the complainant. Taking into account the evidence led by the complainant, the Magistrate, as per the order dated 19. 12. 1991 found sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused under Section 138 of the Act. The accused has filed the present petition for quashing of the complaint and the aforesaid summoning order.