DAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question that arises for consideration in the present petition is as to whether the State Bank of India (for short "the bank"), complainantrespondent is the payee or the holder in due course of the disputed cheque and is entitled to maintain a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short "the N.I. Act").

(2.) Factual position is not in dispute.

(3.) Accused-petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Kissan Sahara Centre and is also a partner, along with others, in M/s Shaktiman Bio Touch. Both the firms have business dealings inter se as well as with the bank. M/s Kissan Sahara Centre issued a cheque dtd. 1/2/2017 (for short "the disputed cheque") drawn in favour of M/s Shaktiman Bio Touch for Rs.5.00lacs, which on encashment, was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. The bank issued legal notice dtd. 24/2/2017, Annexure P-3, and instituted the impugned complaint under Sec. 138 read Sec. 142 of the N.I. Act, Annexure P-4, against the petitioner. By impugned order dtd. 30/3/2017, Annexure P-5, petitioner was summoned and upon his causing appearance, notice of accusation was served upon him and the trial was set in motion.