MOHINDER SINGH BRAR Vs. RATTAN LAL WADHWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mohinder Singh Brar filed that present petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the complaint dated 28.2.1993 (Annexure P-I) filed by respondent NO.1 against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 as also the summoning order dated 27.4.1992 passed by the sub divisional judicial Magistrate Moga.

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Rattan Lal Wadhwa filed a complaint under Sections 138/ 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 alleging that he was a partner of M/s. Guru Nanak Ice Factory, Bombay and this firm purchased plot No. S-524 Bombay from the Maharashtra, Industries Development Corporation. Rupees One lac and fifty thousand were paid to the Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation by way of half pride vide a draft dated 11.4.1989 through Union Bank of India. The petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 who reptituted the firm under the name and style of T1Ahura Enterprises at Bombay intended to purchase the plot of the complainant and approached him at Moga for the sale of the same. They promised to make the payment through Mohinder Singh Brar, present petitioner. After the transfer deed was executed and possession was delivered to the firm Ahura Enterprises, Mohinder Singh Brar issued four charges from his personal account in favour of the complainant. The cheques were as under: 1. Cheque bearing No. 944584 dated 19.9.1989. 2. Cheque bearing No. 847503 dated 25.5.1990. 3. Cheque bearing No. 847506 dated 25.7.1990. 4. Cheque bearing No. 847508 dated 20.8.1990. All those cheques were dishonoured. The partners of Ahura Enterprises thus, fraudulently and dishonestly induced the complainant to sign the transfer deed of his plot in favour of the firm without consideration and thus committed the offences referred to above.

(3.) The petitioner allowed that the cause of action, if any, had arisen at Bombay where the partnership firm existed. Respondent No. 1 had got his account at Bombay and no part of cause of action had arisen at Moga to give territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint there. A perusal of the complaint itself shows that no cause of action had ever arisen at Moga. Moreover ingredients of the offences under Sections 138, 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were not made out. No notice was sent to the petitioner within the prescribed time after the dishonour of the cheques and this fact was also not mentioned in the complaint. The complaint was also not within time. The cheques were returned by the Bank about a year back. The cheque dated 19.9.1989 was presented in a Bank at Bombay and it was returned with the remarks refer to drawerT on 28.9.1989. The second cheque was returned on 4.6.1990. The third cheque was returned on 25.7.1990 and the fourth cheque was returned on 30.7.1990. The respondent for the first time issue notice on 23.1.1991, that is after a lapse of one year and the complaint was clearly barred by time.