BALDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contour of the facts, which requires to be noticed, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant petition and oozing out, from the record, is that, petitioner Baldev Singh son of Shingara Singh, was stated to have taken loan from complainant Bikkar Singh son of Gajjan Singh respondent No. 2 (for brevity "the complainant"). In order to discharge his legal liability, he issued the cheque in question for a sum of Rs.35,000/- to him (complainant). The cheque was presented in the bank for payment, which was dis-honoured/returned with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" and "insufficient funds". According to the complainant, the petitioner-accused did not make the payment of the impugned amount within the stipulated period, even after the issuance of statutory notice. In the background of these allegations, the complainant filed the complaint (Annexure P1) against the petitioner-accused, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the N.I. Act"), in which, he was summoned as accused by the Magistrate, by virtue of impugned summoning order dated 4.10.2006 (Annexure P2).

(2.) The petitioner did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition for quashing the impugned complaint (Annexure P1), summoning order (Annexure P2) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.PC, inter-alia on the various grounds in general and that since he has already paid/deposited the entire amount of loan, subject matter of the cheque in question in the Court, by way of receipt dated 7.1.2008 (Annexure P3), so, the indicated impugned complaint, summoning order and all other subsequent proceedings arising thereto, deserve to be quashed, in particular. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the petitioner sought to quash the impugned complaint and summoning order, as described hereinbefore.

(3.) The complainant-respondent No. 2 refuted the prayer of the petitioner and filed the reply, inter-alia taking certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. The cheque of Rs.35000/- was stated to have been issued in discharge of part liability and not in lieu of entire amount of loan. It will not be out of place to mention here that the complainant has not denied the deposit of amount of the cheque in question in the Court by the petitioner, vide receipt (Annexure P3) and that he has moved an application (Annexure P4) for its withdrawal. However, he prayed for dismissal of the main petition.