GHULAM RASOOL MUGHAL Vs. GH. AHMAD HAJAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the complaint filed by respondent against him alleging commission of offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, as also order dtd. 8/11/2016 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Munsiff), Kupwara, in the said complaint.

(2.) It appears that respondent had filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ['the Act" for short'] before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kupwara (hereinafter referred to as the trial Magistrate). In the complaint it was alleged by the complainant/respondent that the petitioner/accused had issued five cheques for a total amount of Rs.19.50 lacs in discharge of his liability. All these cheques are stated to have been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds whereafter respondent/complainant served a notice of demand upon the petitioner and when he failed to pay the amount despite receipt of the notice, the impugned complaint came to be filed by the respondent/complainant before the trial Magistrate.

(3.) The record of the trial court shows that on 8/11/2016, the learned trial Magistrate has, after recording the preliminary evidence of the complainant/respondent, taken cognizance of the offence and issued process against the petitioner/accused. However, on 6/12/2017, the learned trial Magistrate dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution on account of non-appearance of the complainant/respondent. The trial court record further reveals that on 7/2/2017, the complainant/respondent filed an application before the learned trial Magistrate seeking restoration of the aforesaid complaint. The learned trial Magistrate has, vide order dtd. 19/4/2017, allowed the application of respondent/ complainant and restored the complaint to its original number.