JAGDEEP SINGH Vs. RAMESH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition under S.482 CrPC read with Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 22.1.2019 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 270 of 2015, whereby an application under S. 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter, 'Act') having been filed by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') seeking permission to examine/cross-examine the complainant, came to be dismissed.

(2.) Precisely the facts, as emerge from the record are that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter, 'complainant') filed a complaint under S.I38 of the Act in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, alleging therein that the accused took Rs. 1.00 Lakh from him on account of ticket fare and Visa expenses for sending the complainant's son abroad for employment. However, the fact remains that that after receipt of money from the complainant, accused failed to send complainant's son abroad and also failed to repay the money taken by him from the complainant and, he (accused) with a view to discharge his liability, issued cheque baring No.736991 dated 30.9.2015, amounting to Rs. 1.00 Lakh, drawn on an account maintained by accused with Punjab National Bank, Ganoh, Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Said cheque, on its presentation, came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the account of the accused, vide memo dated 3.5.2015, as such, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under S.138 of the Act against the accused in learned Court below.

(3.) Learned Court below, on the basis of material adduced before it, put notice of accusation to the accused for having committed offence punishable under S.138 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During pendency of the proceedings, accused moved an application under S. 145(2) of the Act, seeking therein permission to cross-examine the complainant stating therein that a false case has been planted by the complainant against him. Learned Court below, vide order dated 22.1.2019, dismissed the aforesaid application. Learned Court below, while dismissing the application observed that bare assertion of the accused that a false case has been planted against him, is not sufficient to allow his prayer for examination/cross-examination of the complainant. In the aforesaid background, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to allow his application under S. 145(2) of the Act, after setting aside the impugned order.