YUDHVIR KHANNA Vs. SARITA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This petition is directed against the order dated 24th January, 1997 passed by learned sub-registrar (Judicial Magistrate) 1st Class, Jammu. By means of impugned order application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the complaint, filed by the respondents under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, has been dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 of the R.P.C. was filed by respondents against the petitioner on the plea that a cheque dated 14-4-1995 in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- was issued by the petitioner drawn on his banker namely Jammu Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Rehari Colony Branch, Jammu in the joint name of both the respondents. This cheque was sent for collection by the respondents through their banker i.e. State Bank of India, Rehari Colony Branch, Jammu twice on 21-4-1995 and 25-4-1995. On both these occasions it was returned with the memo "insufficient funds". As per assurance of petitioner it was again sent for collection through their banker i.e. State Bank of India (supra) on 21-8-1995 but again was received back on 25-8-1995 by the respondents with the memo of the bank dated 23-8-1995 unsufficient funds". After the receipt of dishonoured cheque, a legal notice dated 1-9-1995 was issued as per requirement of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, which was duly received by the petitioner as per facts detailed in the complaint. Further it was pleaded by the respondents that petitioner with the intention to defraud both of them issued the aforesaid cheque when he was aware that there were insufficient funds for honouring the cheque in question.

(3.) Trial Court on the aforesaid allegations and after recording the preliminary evidence as well as on consideration of the documents produced before it ordered the issuance of process against the petitioner vide its order dated 14-10-1995. It appears that during the course of proceedings before the trial Court an application was filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the allegations made therein even if taken on their face value and also accepted in entirety, do not constitute the offences alleged against him, besides raising other plea that there is nothing on record to disclose the nature of debt or liability against which the cheque in question was issued. It was further pleaded that the petitioner does not owe any debt or liability to the respondents nor he had any business transaction with them. This application came to be contested and resisted by the respondents, who amongst other things pleaded that the amount in question was owed by the petitioner towards the Committee Loan availed by him from the respondents. Thus the application came to be disposed of. Since none appeared in this case today on behalf of the petitioner when it was taken up for hearing, the file has been examined with the assistance of learned counsel appearing for respondents.