SUNIL BEHAL Vs. BHAGWAT DAYAL GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Bhagwat Dayal Gupta respondent No. 1 had filed a criminal complaint with respect to the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter described as 'the Act') against the petitioner. It had been asserted that respondent No. 1 is running the business under the name and style of M/s. Babu Ram Harish Chander and is supplying cement to various customers. The petitioner had been purchasing cement from respondent No. 1 as per orders from time to time. After taking delivery of the cement, the petitioner had been compromising and assuring respondent No. 1 to make payment within one month. The petitioner issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 30,702/- dated 27. 5. 1989 drawn at indian Bank, Saket, New Delhi. The same was presented four times but was dishonoured. A notice was issued but the payment was not made within 15 days. On these broad facts, complaint with respect to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed.

(2.) THE learned Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad summoned the petitioner on 9. 3. 1990. By virtue of the present petition Sunil Behal petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint and the order summoning the petitioner as an accused. It is alleged that according to the averments made, the cheque was presented four times No action was taken against the petitioner when the cheque was sent for the first time nor any notice was issued at that time. On basis of the subsequent dishonouring of the cheque action cannot be taken.

(3.) IN the reply filed the respondent No. 1 had contested the petition. It was pointed that respondent No. 1 is the sole proprietor of the firm M/s Babu Ram Harish Chander. The firm had its head office at Pharganj, Delhi. The petitioner had been purchasing cement from respondent No. 1 and issued the cheque dated 27. 5. 1989. The cheque was presented again and again and for the first time it was dishonoured on 24. 7. 1989. The legal notice was issued on 1. 8. 1989. It was insisted that in these facts the respondent no. 1 had a cause and could file the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.