KAILASH KUMAR Vs. MANOJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure Svt. 1989, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashing of complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act as well as order dated 18.04.2017 taking cognizance and issuance of process passed by the Special Mobile Magistrate, Passenger Tax, Jammu.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner while working as a Contractor (MATE) in the year 2015-16 in District Rajouri engaged the respondent to look after and maintain the record of the office, which was established at the residence of the petitioner in Ramkot. It is contended that in connection with his business, which in those days was in Rajouri, the petitioner mostly had to live out of his home. He whenever had to go out of his home, he used to keep some signed cheques in the drawer of the table of the office, so that if some payment was to be made in absence of the petitioner, the said signed cheques could be used. The keys of the drawer mostly remained with his wife. The respondent taking undue benefit of the absence of the petitioner and that of the simplicity of wife of the petitioner stole few signed cheques from the drawer of the office table of the petitioner and filled up the date and other contents as per his convenience.

(3.) It is further contended by the petitioner that he received a legal notice on 01.02.2017 from the respondent demanding an amount of 8,00,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner contacted the respondent and expressed his anguish and dismay over his degraded act. Since the respondent had worked with the petitioner for some time, therefore, the petitioner expressed his willingness and readiness to finalize the account of respondent by paying him Rs. 50,000/- but he kept mum on this offer and sought some time for pondering upon the matter. The petitioner also reported the matter to the Police with regard to the theft of his cheques. Thereafter, the respondent again by cutting and changing the date of 01.02.2017 by 10.03.2017, sent the second notice containing the same contents and again made the same demand for payment of the alleged amount within fifteen days from the receipt of the notice.