MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHUROO Vs. STERLITE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by the medium of this petition filed under Sec. 561-A Cr.P.C. (now repealed and replaced by Sec. 482 Cr. P.C.), seeks quashment of the Order dtd. 3/11/2018 passed by the court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, (Revisional Court), in a revision petition titled Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khuroo and Anr.

(2.) With a view to appreciate the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner in support of his petition, it is necessary to notice material facts briefly. It is claimed by the petitioner that he was engaged as Project Coordinator by the respondent no. 2 for the execution of NFS Project allotted to respondent no. 1 for a monthly salary of Rs.42,000.00The petitioner was also entitled to 2% commission of the project cost for rendering consultancy services as well. During the course of his employment, the petitioner was issued a cheque by the respondent no. 2 amounting to Rs.15.00 lacs drawn at Jammu and Kashmir Bank in lieu of the services rendered by the petitioner. The petitioner presented the said cheque before the concerned Branch, but the same was dishonoured by the Bank with the memo -insufficient funds.- The petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondents bringing it to their notice that the cheque issued by the respondent no. 2 had been dishonored by the Bank and, therefore, they should make the payment else face action under law. However, despite the service of notice, the respondents did not make the payment to the petitioner which made the petitioner to file a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short "N.I.Act"), before the court of Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Srinagar, ("the trial court"). The trial court took cognizance of the commission of offence under Sec. 138 of the N.I.Act and issued process against the respondents.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved by the order of the trial court dtd. 20/2/2017, the respondent no. 1 herein filed a revision petition before the Revisional Court. The revision petition was accepted by the Revisional Court vide its Order dtd. 3/11/2018 and the impugned order qua the respondent no. 1 was set aside vide Order dtd. 3/11/2018 impugned in this petition.