MANMOHAN KRISHAN GUPTA Vs. PAWAN JARAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Criminal Revision has been preferred against order dated 28.02.2018 passed by the learned Sub Judge (Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax and Shop Act), Jammu in a complaint No.416/Complaint titled Pawan Jaral vs. Manmohan Krishan Gupta whereby cognizance of a highly defective complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has been taken and process against the petitioner has been issued.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a retired official from Insurance Company. He is 65 years of age. He has an account in Punjab National Bank Limited, Bakshi Nagar Branch, Jammu and has obtained a cheque book related to his saving bank account No.1197000104141193. However, the said cheque book was misplaced and when the petitioner after making strenuous efforts to trace the cheque book did not succeed, he immediately approached the said bank and got the cheques of the said cheque book having serial No.458631 onwards, stopped on 15.04.2017 on a written request made by the petitioner. It seems that the respondent has somehow got the cheque bearing no.458633 payment of which stands stopped by the petitioner since 15.04.2017 and after filling his name, amount of Rs.5.00 lac and date as 04.01.2018 presented the cheque to the bank of the petitioner through his banker i.e., J&K Bank Ltd., Canal Road, Jammu. Since the petitioner has already stopped aforesaid cheques since 15.04.2017, therefore, the banker of the petitioner i.e., Punjab National Bank Limited returned the said cheque back to the respondent vide memo dated 05.01.2018 with the remarks "payment stopped by Drawer". It is further stated that the respondent has filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner for dishonoring of the aforesaid cheque before the court below. The petitioner appeared before the court below and obtained the copy of the complaint whereby the cognizance has been taken against him. From the perusal of the complaint, it transpires that the aforesaid complaint filed by the respondent is highly defective and based upon totally false and baseless facts. Even the mandatory requirement of service of notice of demand/legal notice has not been served upon the petitioner. The demand notice has been served on wrong address i.e., H.No.227 Bakshi Nagar, Jammu, whereas the correct address of the petitioner is H.No.277, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu; therefore, the notices were defective. Accordingly, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the aforesaid complaint.

(3.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated all the grounds taken in the memo of the petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has taken two grounds in the petition. The first ground is that the notice has been served to the petitioner on defective address. He has argued that the actual address is H.No.277, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu whereas the address given in the notice is H.No.227 Bakshi Nagar, Jammu.