SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos. 546-M of 1993 and 547-M of 1993 as identical questions of law are involved in the two petitions filed by, petitioner Surinder Kumar. The facts are, however, being taken from the case Criminal Misc. Nos. 546-M of 1993.

(2.) THE prayer of the petitioner Surinder Kumar who is the accused in the case is for quashing the complaint instituted on 17. 12. 1991 (Annexure P-I-), by respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881 (Act, for short) and Section 420 of the Indian penal Code (IPC, for short) pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Panipat titled Roop Narain Mukhija v. Surindcr Kumar. The complainant-respondent No. 2 had alleged that the accused-petitioner is the sole proprietor of M/s. Bharat Beej Bhandar, Panipat and is dealing in the sale and purchase of vegetable seeds. The petitioner purchased 100 bags of carrot seeds from the complainant amounting to Rs. 81,300/ -. For the aforesaid sum, the petitioner issued two cheques on 18. 8. 1991, one for a sum of Rs. 40,000/- and the other for Rs. 41,300/- respectively in favour of the complainant. The complainant-respondent presented both the cheques in his bank on the same day i. e. 18. 08. 1991 which were forwarded to the bankers of the petitioner i. e. United Bank of India for collection. However, these cheques were returned with the remarks: "insufficiency of funds" in the account of the petitioner. The accused then requested the complainant that the cheques may be presented again after three months. The cheques were again presented but were dishonoured on account of "insufficiency of funds" in the account of the petitioner on 20. 11. 1991. The complainant-respondent No. 2 in view of the dishonouring of the cheques served a notice dated 25. 11. 1991 through registered post and under postal certificate. The petitioner failed to make the payment within 15 days and accordingly. The complainant Annexure p-I was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat on 17. 12. 1991.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner in challenging the aforesaid complaint is that once a cause of action had accrued, a complaint was liable to be filed at that stage only. A subsequent dishonour of the cheque would not give fresh cause of action.