K. N. SINGH Vs. MANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashment of the complaint filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and 420 RPC, filed against the petitioner herein and also the order dtd. 4/9/2013 passed by the learned JMIC (Sub Judge) Kathua whereby the learned Court has taken cognizance of the complaint and issued the process.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of M/s New Jhelum Construction Company and is engaged in the construction activities. The petitioner states that the respondent is related to the petitioner and decided to engage him for the supervision of one contract awarded to the petitioner under PMGSY for construction of a road at Kathua. The precise case of the petitioner is that a cheque bearing No.093015 dtd. 12/4/2013 for an amount of Rs.7,40,000.00 drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Town Hall Jammu, from Account No. 1279 maintained in the name of the firm of the petitioner was issued to the respondent. The further case of the petitioner is that later on the request of the respondent two cheques of Rs.3,70,000.00 each were issued to the respondent in lieu of earlier cheaque issued for Rs.7,40,000.00. These two cheques were drawn on the account maintained by the petitioner in the J&K Grameen Bank Samba. Both the aforesaid cheques were drawn by the respondent and the amount was transferred in the account of the respondent on 11/5/2013. The cheque earlier issued for Rs.7,40,000.00 was returned by the respondent, but later on the said cheque was stolen by the respondent from the office of the petitioner after he collected the amount of two cheques and withdrew the same on 11/5/2013. The FIR also came to be lodged by the petitioner with regard to the theft committed by the respondent herein with Police Station Domana. It is also submitted in the petition that the respondent used to make payment of the expenditure incurred after receiving the payment from the petitioner with regard to the works mentioned above as respondent was supervising the said work. The cheques issued to the respondent were in fact for clearing the liability incurred for and on behalf of the petitioner in the work allotted to the petitioner company of which the mention is made above.

(3.) Mr. Rahul Pant, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has submitted that there was no liability incurred by the petitioner towards the respondent which could result into issuance of the two cheques in question which were encashed and utilized by the respondent. The two cheques were in lieu of the earlier cheque issued of the same amount of Rs.7,40,000.00 and nothing more. Further reiterating the averments contained in the petition through argument it is submitted that it cannot be mere coincidence that the two cheques issued by the petitioner will be of the same amount regarding which the earlier cheque issued to discharge the liabilities incurred on behalf of the petitioner in the contract allotted to the petitioner company. It is also argued that the petitioner has also filed an FIR No.497/2013 registered with Police Station Domana with regard to theft committed by the respondent of the cheque amounting to Rs.7,40,000.00. The complaint filed by the respondent is abuse of process of law and is required to be quashed on that score.