BINOD SARAWAGI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner prayed for quashing the entire criminal prosecution including the order 4.11.1992 taking cognizance of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Complaint Case No. 654 of 1992.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that Opp. party No. 2 filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, alleging therein that the complainant is a business man and carrying on his business at Nathnager, Bhagalpur, New Delhi and Gauhati (Assam) and is permanent resident of Nathnager, Bhagalpur and also owned a residential house at Greater Kailash, New Delhi. It is alleged that the petitioner is resident of Ranchi and carrying his business at Ranchi, New Delhi and other places and is also a Director of M/s. STI Marketing (P) Ltd. New Delhi. It is further alleged that the petitioner being Director of the Company had issued a cheque drawn on Central Bank of India, Khan Market Branch, New Delhi bearing cheque No. 164875 dated 25.7.1992 for an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/ -in settlement of outstanding dues of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant -Opp. party no. 2 deposited the said cheque in the account of the petitioner in State Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch, New Delhi for collection of its payment from Central Bank of India, Khan Market Branch, Delhi. The cheque was dishonoured and referred back to the drawer with endorsement that no arrangement for payment of the said cheque had been made. It is alleged that the complainant informed the accused persons about the dishonour of the said cheque and have requested to pay the aforesaid sum and also sent legal notice but the accused person neither replied to the notice nor paid the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,25,000/ -. It is further alleged that the complainant -Opp.party no.2 on the assurance of the accused person again presented the cheque to the Central Bank of India, Nathnagar, Branch, Bhagalpur, but the said cheque was again returned to the complainant on 25.9.1992. The complainant, thereafter, instituted a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, who took cognizance of the offence and issued processes against the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. S. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the complainant -Opp. party no.2 submitted that it has been specifically alleged in the complaint that when the cheque was dishonoured from the bank of New Delhi, the accused persons assured the complainant that the cheque will be encashed and directed him to deposit the said cheque in his bank account. Accordingly, the complainant came to Bhagalpur where he permanently resides and deposited the cheque which was sent for collection to New Delhi. Again the cheque was dishonoured. According to the learned counsel, the Court at Bhagalpur has jurisdiction and the complaint has been rightly filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur. Learned counsel then submitted that when a cheque is dishonoured, the offence is complete and the plea of no liability to discharge the dues cannot be entertained. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the case of Electronics Trade and Technology Development Corp. Ltd vs. Indian Technology and Engineers (Electronics) Pvt. Ltd reported in A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 2339.