SANJEEV KHAJURIA Vs. RAVINDER SINGH PATHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 03.11.2007 passed by learned CJM Kathua on the complaint filed by respondent against petitioner herein by virtue whereof the trial Court issued process against the petitioner for offence under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 561-A, Cr. P. C., the petitioner prays for quashing of complaint as well as the proceedings before the trial Court.

(2.) Allegedly petitioner, in discharge of past liabilities, issued cheque No. 11631010 dated 03.09.2007 for sum of Rs. 1,00,000.00 drawn at J & K Bank Kathua in favour of respondent herein which on being presented in the Bank was dishonoured and returned on 15.09.2007 with endorsement of insufficiency of funds in the account of petitioner. Respondent issued statutory notice of demand to petitioner on 07.10.2007 which was claimed to have been served upon petitioner on 21.09.2007 (date as reflected in the complaint, otherwise it should have been 21-10-2007). Respondent filed the complaint under Sec. 138 of NI Act on 03.11.2007 and on the same date, learned CJM Kathua, after examining the respondent under Sec. 200, Cr. P. C., took cognisance of offence under Sec. 138 of NI Act against petitioner herein and issued process against him which has been assailed in the present proceedings.

(3.) The impugned order dated 03.11.2007 directing issue of process against petitioner herein under Sec. 138 of NI Act has been assailed on the ground that the trial Court has overlooked the fact that the cheque in question has not been issued by the petitioner in his personal capacity. It is contended that the cheque in dispute was drawn by M.L.K. Education and Welfare Trust and signed on behalf of the Trust by the Chairman. Thus, it is contended, the cheque so drawn was of account maintained by the M.L.K. Educational and Welfare Trust and not of the account maintained by the petitioner. It is further contended that the Ld. Trial Court has construed the liability of the Trust as that of the petitioner least realising that liability under the said cheque was that of the Trust and not personal liability of the petitioner.