LAWS(P&H)-1994-1-21

ASHOK VERMA Vs. RITESH AGRO PVT LTD

Decided On January 12, 1994
ASHOK VERMA Appellant
V/S
RITESH AGRO PVT LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been filed by Ashok verma under Section 482 Crpc for quashing the criminal complaint dated 3. 8. 1991 annexure P/4 and the summoning order dated 21. 11. 1992 Annexure P/5, issued by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this petition are that Ritesh Agro Pvt. Ltd. supplied some readymade garments to the petitioner at delhi on credit. The petitioner had been making part payment for the goods received but still a sum of Rs. 71,640. 95 became due as price of the goods. The respondent requested the petitioner to make payment of this amount and on 6. 4. 1991 the petitioner handed over cheque bearing No. 476724 dated 10. 1. 1991 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The cheque was duly endorsed in the name of the respondent and all cuttings on the cheque were attested. The respondent presented the cheque for payment through its banker at delhi but the cheque was dishonoured and was returned vide memo dated 13. 7. 1991 on the ground that there were insufficient funds in the account of the petitioner and the bank was not in a position to pay the amount. A notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act for short) was served on the petitioner on 20. 7. 1991 against postal receipt No. 4431 which was duly received by the petitioner but no payment was made, so the complaint was filed on 3. 8. 1991.

(3.) THE petitioner alleged that Section 138 of the Act envisaged a clear 15 days' notice to the drawer of the cheque and the time was to be computed from the date of receipt of the notice, but the impugned complaint had been filed before the expiry of 15 days and the complaint was liable to be quashed on this ground. It was further pleaded that the respondent company had been wound up and it merged in Ritesh Industries Limited, so it had no locus standi to pursue the complaint.