P N PANDIT Vs. ANIL JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal miscellaneous petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, whereby the petitioner (Dr. P. N. Pandit) has sought the quashing of the complaint annexure P-6. For the appreciation of the claim of the petitioner for quashing of the complaint annexure P-6, it would be useful to notice the facts of the complaint annexure P-6.

(2.) THE petitioner, Dr. P. N. Pandit, was a tenant of the entire first floor of House No. 3832, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh, belonging to Anil Joshi--respondent (complainant) on a monthly rent. Later on, the petitioner (accused) enhanced the rental to Rs. 1,500 per mensem. He paid rent to the complainant-respondent (Anil Joshi) at the rate of Rs. 1,500 for April, 1994. He did not pay rent for the subsequent period and vacated the tenanted premises on October 31, 1994, Prior to the vacation of tenanted premises by him, he gave him two cheques Nos. FMG/s/o 0800579, dated July 20, 1994, for Rs. 3,000 and FMG/s/o 0800580, dated August 5, 1994, for Rs. 1,500 as rental for May, June and July, 1994. The complainant (respondent--Anil Joshi presented the aforesaid cheques in his bank (the Punjab State Co-operative Bank Limited) on January 11, 1995. The bank issued a counter-foil to him. The Punjab State Co-operative Bank Limited forwarded the aforesaid cheques to the Central Bank of India, Extension Counter Sector 32, Chandigarh, so that the amount of the cheques could be realised from the account of the petitioner (accused) and finally credited to the account of complainant-respondent (Anil Joshi ). The Central Bank of India, Sector 32, Chandigarh, vide memo dated January 12, 1995, refused to honour the aforesaid cheques saying "payment stopped by drawer". On January 14, 1995, the Punjab State Co-operative Bank Limited, Chandigarh, returned the aforesaid cheques to the complainant-respondent (Anil Joshi) along with memo containing the remarks "payment stopped by drawer". On the receipt of the aforesaid dishonoured cheques together with the said memo containing the remarks "payment stopped by drawer" he contacted counsel and got issued a legal notice dated January 27, 1995, to Dr. P. N. Pandit through registered AD cover and UPC cover. The accused refused to receive the said notice. The notice sent through UPC stood served on him, as if the same had not been served on him, he would have received the same back. The accused gave reply to the said notice and refused to pay the amount of the cheques. He had received the notice on February 6, 1995. He was bound to pay the amount of cheques to the complainant up to February 21, 1995. By not making to him the payment of the aforesaid cheques up to February 21, 1995, he committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was put to wrongful loss by the accused by getting the payment stopped. He caused wrongful gain to himself. On these allegations, Anil Joshi instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) THE respondent (complainant, Anil Joshi) opposed this petition urging that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be quashed if "stop payment" is the reason for dishonour of the cheque followed by a notice to pay the amount and, thereafter, failure of the drawer to pay the cheque amount. The disputed questions of fact require evidence to be produced in the Magistrate's court. The petitioner has alleged something which requires evidence and, therefore, this petition is incompetent. The petitioner used to pay rent to him and obtain receipt. The petitioner and the respondent mutually agreed that the rent be enhanced from Rs. 1,150 per mensem to Rs. 1,500 per mensem with effect from April, 1994. The petitioner paid rental to the tune of Rs. 1,500 for April, 1994. He did not pay rent for May, 1994. It was denied that the rent was enhanced to Rs. 1,500 per mensem on the stipulation that the petitioner will retain the premises up to May 31, 1996, and not thereafter. It was pleaded that the petitioner gave the cheques in question in lieu of rental for June, July and August, 1994. It was denied that he (complainant) put pressure upon the petitioner to vacate the premises at any time before December, 1994. It was denied that he agreed to charge Rs. 1,150 per month as rental in case the premises were vacated before December, 1994. It was denied that the rental at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per mensem was to be charged in case the premises were to be retained up to May 31, 1996. It is an imaginary story cooked up by the petitioner about which there is no ring of truth. It was admitted that the petitioner vacated the premises in question on October 31, 1994. It was also admitted that nothing was due towards the electricity and water charges. It was denied that payment to the tune of Rs. 5,750 was made to him in lieu of rental from June, 1994, to October, 1994, at the rate of Rs. 1,150 per mensem. If rental to the tune of Rs. 5,750 had been paid to him he would have insisted upon getting the receipt. It was denied that he advised the petitioner to write to the bank to stop payment. Why should he have pressed the payment of the cheques if no rental had been due to him from the petitioner as he would not have gone in for uncalled for litigation.