ARUNA KHURANA Vs. BAREILLY FINANCIERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - M/s Bareilly Financiers (respondent No. 1) filed a complaint against the petitioners with respect to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act' ). It was contended that respondent No. 1 is the financier company and has its head office at Chandigarh. The petitioner-accused had approached the respondent- company for a loan of Rs. 30. 000/ -. it agreed to pay the loan on the oral agreement. The petitioners-accused had promised to return the same. It is further contended that towards the discharge of their liability through partner Aruna Khurana and Satish Khurana, a cheque of Rs. 30,000/- was issued, drawn at Punjab and Sind Bank, Bareilly. It was in favour of the respondent- company. The cheque was presented to the banker at Chandigarh but was dis- honoured with the remarks "insufficient balance". On these broad facts, the required notice was issued and the complaint was filed.

(2.) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 19. 11. 93 held that there are sufficient grounds to proceed and summoned the petitioners as accused.

(3.) PETITIONERS by virtue of the present petition urge that the complaint and the subsequent proceedings should be quashed because no notice of demand contemplated had been served and in any case the petitioners cannot be prosecuted because they are simply the partners in a partnership firm. In the reply filed it is insisted that notice was issued and that the petitioners have to be prosecuted.