RAJ KUMAR MANGLA Vs. INDO LOWENBRAU BREWERIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Indo Lowenbrau Breweries Ltd. (hereinafter described as 'the respondent') filed a complaint against the petitioner and others with respect to the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). It was contended that M/s. Rohtas Wine Traders is a partnership concern, Petitioner Raj Kumar Mangla and Kishna Dev are its partners. In the year 1991-92, the partnership concern had business dealing with the respondent. On 31-3-1992 a sum of Rs. 1,19,650/- was standing debted in the account of the partnership concern. Action on behalf of other partner and the firm Kishan Dev issued a cheque for the said amount drawn on the Bank of India, Gurgaon Branch. The cheque was presented with the banker i.e. State Bank of India for collection of the amount. It was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. The petitioner and the others were informed to withhold the cheque for sometime. At the instructions of the accused, the respondent again presented the cheque but was dishonoured. The cheque was presented again on 28-9-1992 but because of insufficiency of funds, it was dishonoured. After due notice and alleging that the cheque was dishonoured because of the act of the petitioner and others, the criminal complaint referred to above was filed.

(2.) The learned Judicial Magistrate at Faridabad recorded the preliminary evidence and thereupon vide order dated 28-2-1994 summoned the petitioner and others as accused. Petitioner Raj Kumar Mangla by virtue of the present petition seeks quashing of the complaint and the order summoning him as accused. It is contended that the petitioner had put in appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate. He submitted an application for recalling of the order but the said application was dismissed.

(3.) The ground taken up by the petitioner for quashing the complaint and the order summoning him as accused is that there is no specific allegation against him that petitioner was responsible to the firm and in terms of Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he was liable for act of the other partners.