DEV RAJ Vs. BIR SINGH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant petition filed under S.482 CrPC, prayer has been made on behalf of petitioners/accused for quashing and setting aside order dtd. 3/3/2018, whereby application under Sec. 319 CrPC filed by the respondent No.2/complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') praying therein to array the petitioners as an accused in case No. 67 of 2016, having been filed by him under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending adjudication before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, Tehsil and District Chamba, came to be allowed.

(2.) Precisely the facts, as emerge from the record are that the complainant instituted a complaint under S.138 of the Act in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, District Chamba, against respondent No.2/accused-Rishi Rana (hereinafter, 'accused'), alleging therein that the above named accused approached him in the month of March, 2016, seeking loan of Rs.5.00 Lakh for his domestic use. Complainant, who had cordial relations with the accused, advanced Rs.5.00 Lakh in the month of March, 2016 with the understanding that the same shall be returned by the accused within a period of one month. Since the accused failed to make payment in the month of April, 2016, he issued cheque bearing No. 063983 dtd. 25/4/2016 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.5.00 Lakh drawn at Punjab National Bank Sultanpur, Chamba, against saving bank account No. 7893002100000314. However, the fact remains that the said cheque on its presentation was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Since despite issuance of legal notice, accused Rishi Rana failed to make the payment, complainant instituted proceedings under S.138 of the Act in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba.

(3.) After recording of evidence in the case, complainant preferred an application under S.319 CrPC, (Annexure P-4), praying therein to array petitioners herein as an accused on the ground that the cheque in question was also signed by them. In the aforesaid application, complainant averred that during the course of cross-examination, it transpired that the cheque in question is issued from a current account, which is in the name of the firm and the same has been signed by the persons sought to be arrayed as an accused, in addition to Rishi Rana. Apart from above, complainant also averred that inadvertently notice under S.138 of the Act was only issued to Rishi Rana being the authorized signatory but since the petitioners also signed the cheque, they are required to be arrayed as an accused.