SATNAM ENTERPRISES Vs. AMAR INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint dated 23. 11. 90 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and summoning order dated 1. 12. 90 and the order dated 6. 1. 1994 whereby the application of the respondents for the substitution of the complainant have been allowed.

(2.) THE complainant has lodged a complaint under section 138 of the act alleging that cheques bearing Nos 331137 dated 20. 9. 1990 and 3331139 dated 1. 10. 1990 when presented to his bankers were dishonoured with the remarks refer to drawer. After the dishonour of the cheques the complainant has served legal notice dated 23. 10. 1990 and when payment was not made within the prescribed period, the complaint was lodged.

(3.) THE present complaint is sought to be quashed for the reason that the complaint was filed through Manager who has given in writing that he ceased to be Manager and therefore not interested in continuing with the prosecution. However, another application was moved by to pursue the complaint on behalf of the complainant. On the said application, the trial Court has permitted the partner to prosecute the complaint and consequently the order dated 6. 1. 1994 is challenged in the present petition alongwith the order dated 6. 1. 1994 is challenged in the present petition alongwith complaint itself. Petitioner has also sought quashing of the complaint on the ground that the first cheque has been presented again only to evade the point of limitation and that a joint notice has been served in respect of both the cheques which is not permissible.