HARBANS LAL Vs. RAJIV KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter for short, Cr.P.C) for quashing the order dtd. 17/7/2018 passed by the learned Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu in file no.174/Complaint under Sec. 138 Cr.P.C. titled "Harbans Lal Vs. Rajiv Kumar and allowing the application of the petitioner for summoning Branch Manager of J&K Bank, Jalandhar as well as for re-summoning the Branch Manager Punjab National Bank, Miran Sahib, Jammu.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case are that the respondent, a relative of the petitioner/complainant, borrowed an amount of Rs.6,00,000.00(rupees six lacs) for his domestic/personal purposes from the petitioner/complainant. It was also assured to petitioner/complainant by the respondent that the said amount would be returned by February 2015. That respondent/accused failed to return the said amount by February 2015 whereupon the petitioner after conforming to mandate of the Negotiable Instruments Act, firstly issued mandatory notice and thereafter filed a complaint which is pending before the learned Special Excise Mobile Magistrate, Jammu under Sec. 138 Cr P C under the title "Harbans Lal vs. Rajiv Kumar. It is stated that the petitioner/complainant is still leading his evidence and his right to lead evidence has not been closed yet. It is further stated that the respondent has admitted service of notice upon him and the petitioner also stands examined. Moreover, one other witness namely, Kuldeep Kumar Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Miran Sahib, Jammu stands examined on 4/5/2017 in addition to petitioner/complainant. In the list of witnesses in the complaint, the petitioner/complainant had mentioned 'concerned bank officials' at serial no.3 of the said list and by this the petitioner/complainant meant to include all the concerned bank officials who had the record of the presentation and dishonor of the cheque in question. It is stated that, however, by sheer oversight, when the petitioner/complainant was to deposit the diet expenses of the witnesses, he missed to mention the name of the Branch Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Jalandhar who issued the "memo of dishonor".

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that later on, petitioner/complainant moved an application u/s 540 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Branch Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Jallandhar as well as Branch Manager, PNB, Miransahib, however, the said application was dismissed on 17/7/2018 and both the prayers of the petitioner/complainant to re-summon the official of PNB Miran Sahib and to summon the official of Branch Manager, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Jalandhar were declined.