HARBINDER SINGH Vs. SUMAN RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this common judgment Criminal Revision Nos. 245 of 1995 (Harbinder Singh v. Smt. Suman Rani) and 234 of 1995 (Harbinder Singh v. Smt. Neelam Rani) can be disposed of together because the questions involved in both the petitions are identical.

(2.) HARBINDER Singh, petitioner, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, "the Act"), against Smt. Suman Rani. In one complaint, as a result of which Criminal Revision No. 245 of 1995 has arisen, he asserted that in lieu of the agreement dated October 19, 1992, Smt. Suman Rani had issued a post-dated cheque on October 26, 1992, for Rs. 50,000. The cheque was presented in Punjab and Sind Bank, Sangrur, and was returned unpaid by the Union Bank of India, Sangrur Branch. A notice was served but the respondent failed to make the payment. This resulted in the filing of the complaint under Section 158 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur, after perusing the preliminary evidence held that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the respondent-accused and summons as such were directed to be issued. The respondent filed a revision petition in the Court of Sessions at Sangrur.

(3.) ON identical facts Harbinder Singh, the petitioner, had filed another complaint against Smt. Neelam Rani and it requires no repetition.