SHALU SINGH @ SHALU SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the complainant opposite party no. 2 as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.

(2.) Petitioners in the present case are seeking quashing of the order dated 03.10.2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in Compliant Case No. 668(C)/2012 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 406, 418 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code and decided to issue summons to the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners refers the complaint petition which is Annexure-1 to the present application. According to the learned counsel, a bare perusal of the complaint petition without adding or subtracting anything out of that would show that the petitioners on the one hand being the Proprietors of M/s S.A. Trading of Bhagalpur and the opposite party no. 2 being the representative of the company, namely, M/s AMCO Batteries Limited were in a business relationship. According to him, there are complaints that the company was supplying batteries to the accused persons according to their demand and the accused persons had promised that they will make prompt payments of the goods received by them but, later on, when the company found that the accused persons were making irregular payments, the company wanted to stop supplying goods, as the accused persons gave a false representation that they will liquidate the dues very soon, the company continued with the supply. Learned counsel further submits that according to the complainant, the accused gave seven cheques of various dates amounting to Rs. 12,00,000/- to the company but those cheques stood dishonoured on presentation due to insufficiency of funds. Admittedly no action was taken under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The business relationship, according to the complaint, had ceased to exist with effect from 15.10.2010. A reading of the complaint, according to the learned counsel, would show that in fact it is an admission of the complainant that the accused paid a sum of Rs. 1,98,000/- but the allegation is that accused-petitioners did not make payment of rest amount which led to filing of the present case.