PRITAM SINGH Vs. TAWI EDUCATION TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petitionunder Section 561-A, Cr. P.C. petitioner seeks quashing of complaint dated 27-4-2003, filed by the respondent under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and also the order of Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge) Jammu dated 9-6-2003 by virtue of which the petitioner has been summoned to stand trial under the aforesaid offence.

(2.) It appears that Tawi Educational Trust, through its Manning Trustee Vidhi S. Singh, preferred a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, before the Judicial Magistrate (Sub Judge) Jammu, averring that land measuring 100 Kanals approximately was required for establishing its one of the Institutes and the accused, being a property dealer, was approached to provide and arrange the land. It is further stated that an amount of Rs. 11 lacs (Rupees one lac in cash and rupees ten lacs through cheque No. 321107 dated 4-10-2002), was paid by the complainant to the petitioner-accused, on demand, as approximate cost of the land. It was agreed between the parties that if the required land is not made available to the complainant by the petitioner-accused in token against the amount received by petitioner/accused, cheque No. 357657, dated 4-11-2002 for an amount of Rs. 11 lacs issued by the petitioner-accused in favour of the complainant, drawn at The Jammu Central Co-operative Bank Limited, shall be encashed after one month from the date of agreement. As the petitioner-accused is stated to have failed to provide the land to the complainant, the cheque issued by him was presented for encashment to Jammu Central Co-operative Bank Limited by the complainant through its banker, Punjab National Bank, Domana, Jammu on 7-4-2003. The cheque was, however, returned unpaid for reasons "Account closed", with its memo dated 10-4-2003 and further intimation received In this behalf by the complainant on 12-4-2003.

(3.) Notice dated 24-4-2003, however, was dispatched through speed post by the complainant to the petitioner-accused, through his advocate, calling upon him to pay Rs. 11 lacs within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. It is further stated that notice was received by the wife of the petitioner-accused on the same day. Since the petitioner-accused failed to make the payment of the amount mentioned in the notice, despite its receipt, it compelled the complainant to prefer the complaint against him.