LAWS(J&K)-2018-10-73

NARINDER PAL SINGH Vs. S KULBIR SINGH

Decided On October 26, 2018
NARINDER PAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
S Kulbir Singh Respondents

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 order of cognizance dated 26.04.2016 as well as issuance of summons by Special Munsiff Mobile Magistrate, Jammu and also for quashment of the complaint filed by respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act before the Court of Munsiff, Jammu.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs. 00 lacs from respondent in June 2015 and on demand had given two blank cheques bearing No.499466 and 499467 including the cheque in question on the assurance of respondent that he will just retain these cheques as security purpose and will return them to the petitioner after liquidation of borrowed amount. The respondent also charged interest from the petitioner and the total amount decided to be repaid was fixed at Rs. 3.00 lacs.

(3.) On asking of the respondent to return the amount early, the petitioner issued three cheques bearing Nos.905128, 905129 and 905130 on 18.02.2016. These cheques were issued in the name of wife and son of respondent, namely, Surinder Kour and Jatinder Singh, which were duly presented by above named persons on 20.02.2016 and Rs. 00 lacs were withdrawn in the name of Surinder Kour and Jatinder Singh. After liquidation of whole of the borrowed money along with interest, the petitioner requested the respondent to return the cheques previously given to him but he did not return the same after repeated requests. It is contended that when the petitioner asked the respondent that if he will not return the cheques previously given, he will forced to knock the doors of Court due to which the respondent got aggressive and on 06.02016, he forcibly entered the office premises of petitioner and assaulted the petitioner using abusive language and ransacked the office and while leaving had also threatened the petitioner of causing wrongful damage to the petitioner.