SUNIL TALWAR Vs. INDERJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing of the complaint annexure P-1 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') and the summoning order Annexure P-4 made thereunder arise out of the following facts :-

(2.) THE petitioner Sunil Talwar is a partner in the firm known as M/s. S. S. Textiles mills, Amritsar. This firm was dealing in the business of Textiles and for this purpose, they used paddy husk as fuel. Inderjit Singh respondent supplied paddy husk to the petitioner's firm from time to time and the payment was also made to the respondent as per routine. The petitioner, however, issued three cheques No. 768847 dated July 30, 1991 for Rs. 7800/- No. 768873 dated 20th Nov. , 1991, for Rs. 5000/- and No. 768874 dated 30th November, 1991, for Rs. 5000/- in favour of the respondent drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce. The respondent presented these cheques in the Bank in the month of January, 1992 and the same were dishonoured with the report "no arrangement for meeting the payment". The respondent then served the petitioner with a registered notice annexure P-2 dated 10th January, 1992 and annexure P-3 dated 29th January, 1992 but as no payment was made, the respondent filed a complaint Annexure P-l to the petition. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar, after going through the preliminary evidence, summoned the petitioner vide Annexure P-4 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter called 'the act' ). Hence, this petition for quashing of the proceedings.

(3.) THE case of the petitioner set out in the petition is that the cheques had been presented in the bank more than five months after they had been drawn by the petitioner and no explanation has come as to why this delay had occurred and that the complainant had not approached the petitioner personally for the clearing of the dues. Reliance was also placed on Kumaresan v. Ameerappa, 1991 (3)RCR 172 : [vol. 1 DCTC 161] to contend that as no request had been made to the complainant before filing the complaint, no prosecution was competent.