ANAND DEV SHARMA Vs. MANISH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the Cr.P.C.) is the order of summoning dated 9.04.2013 (Annexure P -8) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana vide which the present petitioner has been summoned in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, for facing trial in respect of dishonouring of cheque dated 30.12.2012 valuing Rs.2,00,000/ -. The challenge has also been made to the order dated 26.3.2014 passed by learned Shri Vinod Kumar Goyal, Additional Sessions judge, Ludhaina whereby the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 9.4.2013 passed by Shri Rahul Kumar, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana was dismissed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated Manish Malhotra filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner with the allegations that there are friendly relations between the accused and the complainant and the accused borrowed Rs.2,00,000/ - from the complainant in the month of October 2012 and assured to repay the said amount within two months. To discharge his liability, the accused issued cheque bearing No.938181 dated 30.12.2012 for Rs.2,00,000/ - drawn on State Bank of India, Phullanwal, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana. The said cheque was presented and was dishonoured vide memo dated 19.1.2013 with the remarks insufficient funds. Thereafter, complainant again approached the accused and the accused make sure of the payment that the cheque may be again presented in the last week of February 2013. On assurance, the cheque was presented but was received back with the report payment stopped by drawer vide memo dated 27.2.2013. Legal notices dated 4.3.2013 posted on 5.3.2013 were issued but in spite of that the amount was not paid. Hence the complaint.

(3.) THE petitioner was summoned vide order dated 9.4.2013. That order was challenged before Additional Sessions judge and the revision was dismissed vide order dated 26.3.2014. Both the order dated 9.4.2013 and 26.3.2014 have been challenged in the present petition.