SURINDER KUMAR NEGI Vs. RADHA KRISHAN NEGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, the same were taken up of together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. In all these petitions, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 26.9.2013 rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr in Cr. Rev. Nos. 12 -K/10 of 2013, 13 -K/10 of 2013, 14 -K/10 of 2013 and 15 -K/10 of 2013 and orders dated 10.9.2013 rendered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur in complaint case Nos. 120/3 of 2009, 13/3 of 2010, 119/3 of 2009 and 88/3 of 2010. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of Cr.MMO No.4094/2013 have been taken into consideration.

(2.) THE complainant, Rajinder Singh, (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant" for the sake of convenience) filed a complaint against the petitioner, Surender Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the "accused" for the sake of convenience) under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is averred in the complaint that the accused is an apple contractor and used to come in every apple season in village Brelangi to purchase apples. He was in dire need of money. He had taken loan of Rs.1,13,000/ - from the complainant in the month of September 2009 at Reckong Peo. He had promised to repay the amount on or before 20.11.2009. However, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.011809 dated 20.11.2009 amounting to Rs.1,13,000/ - drawn at Bank of India, Branch of at Shimla, H.P.. The respondent presented the cheque to the Bank of India through Punjab National Bank, Branch at Reckong Peo for collection. However, the same was returned unpaid to the complainant on 9.4.2010 due to insufficiency of funds. The complainant issued legal notice on 19.4.2010 to the petitioner through his counsel to make the payment within fifteen days. The notice was returned with an endorsement that the addressee was not found. The complainant also sent a notice through UPC, which was duly received by the accused. It is in these circumstances, the complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kinnaur at Reckong Peo.

(3.) THE accused filed revision petition against the order dated 10.9.2013 before the learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr. He dismissed the same on 26.9.2013.