RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UTTAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant petition filed under Section 561-A Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing of impugned order dated 06.04.2013 passed by learned Munsiff, Hiranagar in file No.07/Comp. titled Uttam Chand v. Rakesh Kumar Gupta and all subsequent proceedings in the said complaint.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that a false and frivolous complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been preferred by the respondent against the petitioner in the Court of learned Munsiff JMIC, Hiranagar; that vide order dated 06.04.2013 the cognizance against the petitioner has been taken by the learned Munsiff JMIC Hiranagar; that in his statement recorded on 12.11.2013, the petitioner denied his liability or debt vis-a-vis the petitioner on the ground that the transactions in regard to land took place with the daughter-in-law of the petitioner who is a headmaster in School Education and all liability has been paid by the petitioner to her. On that count the respondent has no locus standi to present the said complaint against the petitioner. This fact has been admitted by the respondent in his statement recorded before the learned Munsiff on 03.09.2014. The criminal complaint as well as order dated 06.04.2013 and the subsequent proceedings resulting thereof are patent abuse of the process of law and as such impugned on the following grounds:

(3.) Objections stand filed on behalf of respondent stating therein that the petitioner has been abusing the process of law and has been trying to prolong the decision in the complaint. The facts have been stated correctly and by misleading this Court has obtained an interim direction. The petitioner earlier had paid the amount, which is recorded in the order sheet of the trial Court. More over, the respondent has followed the provisions of law as provided under the Negotiable Instruments Act and ultimately on being satisfied, issued the process against the accused. The process was issued on 06.04.2013. The petitioner continued to appear before the trial Court for more than one year and also made part payment as has been recorded in the order. This petition has been filed to stall the process to get rid of the abuse of process of the Court, but rather with a only motive to abuse the process of the Court. All the pleas which have been taken can only be decided by the trial Court. It is submitted that for legal liability, the petition under Section 138 was filed after following all the provisions of law and the complaint was filed within the period of limitation and the present petition filed is required to be dismissed.