NARINDER SINGH Vs. KOUSHAL KUMAR PADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By invoking inherent powers vested in this Court in terms of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks to quash order dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bhaderwah ["the Trial Court?] in a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Ac , 1881 ["the Act"] filed by the respondent against the petitioner, whereby the Trial Court, after recording preliminary statement of the complainant and his witnesses, has issued process to secure presence of the petitioner for facing the trial.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of instant petition are that the respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner on the allegation that the petitioner had issued in his favour a cheque bearing No.005922 dated 26.07.2019 for an amount of CRM(M) No.386/2020 CrlM No.1448/2020 Rs.26,00,000/- drawn on petitioner?s account maintained with Ellaquai Dehati Bank, Branch Bhaderwah. The respondent deposited the said cheque for encashment in the bank on 26.07.2019 but the same was returned with the memo that account of the petitioner did not have sufficient fund for its encashment. The cheque was returned with the aforesaid memo by the bank on 25.10.2019. As is claimed, the respondent served a demand notice on the petitioner on 31.10.2019 requesting the petitioner to make the payment of the cheque amount within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner did not make the payment and, therefore, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed before the Trial Court.

(3.) The complaint was entertained and taken cognizance of by the Trial Court, and preliminary statement of the complainant and his witnesses in support of the complaint was recorded. The Trial Court after considering the complaint and documents appended therewith as also the preliminary statement of the complainant and his witness, arrived at the satisfaction that there were sufficient grounds to proceed further in the matter. Accordingly, vide order impugned dated 27.11.2019, process was issued against the petitioner. It is this order of issuance of process, which is called in question by the petitioner in this petition primarily on two grounds:-