KAPOOR CHAND Vs. MOHAN LAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KAPOOR Chand, a partner of Gupta Oil Store, Babin Road, Dhanora, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint dated February 20, 1992, annexure P-1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the summoning order passed on April 27, 1992, annexure P-2 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. The allegations in the complaint, annexure P-1, filed by Mohan Lal, respondent, in brief are that Mohan Lal was a partner of Pankaj Filling Station situated on G. T. Road, Karnal, which was a dealer of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. On August 30, 1991, the petitioner as a partner of Gupta Oil Store, Dhanora, issued a cheque No. NMCA/a-154204 for an amount of Rs. 1,30,000 payable at New Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. , to payee's account. This cheque was handed over to Mohan Lal at Karnal and he deposited it in savings bank account No. 10175 with the Union Bank of India, Karnal branch, on December 16, 1991, for collection of the amount from New Bank of India, Karnal. The money in the account of the present petitioner being insufficient, the cheque was dishonoured by New Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. , on December 26, 1991, vide its memo to the effect. Thereafter, a registered notice was sent to the petitioner on January 6, 1992, but payment of the amount was not made within 15 days and thus the complaint, annexure P-l, was filed on February 20, 1992, in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal.

(2.) THE petitioner alleged that he had installed a petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation on some land half portion of which was purchased by Mohan Lal "benami" and Mohan Lal wanted to evict him from that land. He opened a fraudulent account in the name of Gupta Oil Store, Dhanora, through its partner, i. e. , the petitioner in New Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. , fabricated a bogus cheque and got the same dishonoured on December 26, 1991, on the ground of insufficient funds. In fact the petitioner had no account in New Bank of India, Ambala Cantt. , It was further alleged that there was litigation between the petitioner and his brother, Om Parkash, and Mohan Lal in connivance with Om Parkash wanted the petitioner to be declared as partner in Gupta Oil Store, Dhanora, whereas the fact was that he was the sole proprietor of the firm, Gupta Oil Stores, Dhanora. The complaint was filed in connivance with Om Parkash to harass him so that he may vacate the disputed land. The complaint did not reveal any offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as it was unspecific and vague and it amounted to an abuse of the process of the court. It was not mentioned in the complaint on which date the cheque was given by the petitioner to the respondent nor it was explained for what transaction the huge amount of Rs. 1,30,000 was proposed to be paid to the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Aakash Jain, counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Maharaj Kumar, counsel for the respondent.