RAJINDER TREHAN Vs. HDFC BANK LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.PC is for quashing of Order dtd. 6/4/2022 (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned JMIC, Amritsar in complaint bearing No.NACT1780/17/4/2017 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, District Amritsar titled HDFC Bank Vs. EMM EMM Constructions vide which the application moved by the petitioner/accused under Sec. 311 Cr.PC has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-HDFC Bank filed a complaint under Sec. 138 against the petitioner being the authorised signatory of M/s EMM EMM Constructions with the allegations that the firm had availed a loan facility from the Bank and in order to discharge the loan amount the petitioner had issued a post date cheque in favour of the complainant Bank which on presentation was dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. Based on the said complaint the trial Court summoned the petitioner to face the trial for an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(3.) Initially the complaint was filed through Bhupinder Singh, Manager Legal as authorised signatory of the bank. Subsequently the complainant moved an application dtd. 5/7/2017 for substituting Rajinder Parshad, Deputy Manager to pursue the complaint in place of Mr. Bhupinder Singh. The said application for substitution was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dtd. 26/7/2017. During the course of trial Rajinder Parshad appeared as CW-1 and tendered his affidavit. He was cross examined by the earlier counsel for the petitioner.