DEWAN CHAND SHARMA Vs. PARAMJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of orders dated 12.05.2016 and 23.02.2018 passed by the learned City Judge, Jammu in a complaint titled Dewan Chand Sharma vs Paramjeet Singh under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the learned City Judge, Jammu vide order dated 25.04.2016, after perusing the complaint and evidence affidavit, issued notice to the respondent; that on 12-05-2016, the respondent appeared for the first time before the learned City Judge, Jammu and his statement under Section 242 Cr.PC was recorded on the same day wherein he has clearly admitted the issuance of cheque by him and also receipt of legal notice. The respondent stated that he wanted to make the payment to the petitioner in pursuance of the cheque. He further stated that he would pay the installment of Rs.20,000/-per month initially and thereafter a monthly installment of Rs.30,000/-and shall liquidate the remaining installments on a monthly installment of Rs.40,000/- ; that thereafter the respondent remained absent and on 15-12- 2016, respondent had come to the court and made a statement that he had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the account of the petitioner through on line transaction in pursuance of his pending installment; that on 02.02.2017, the respondent made the payment of Rs.20,000/-in pursuance of the installment settled by him and further under took to pay Rs.30,000/- next month, but on the next date he remained absent and non bailable warrants were issued against him. Thereafter, the respondent remained absent for next two dates and on 03-06-2017, he appeared and paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner through his counsel and sought time for making the payment of balance amount; that on 23.02.2018, the court asked the respondent to make the payment, where upon the respondent stated that he would make the payment of Rs.20,000/- on that day and requested to pass over the file for some time, but at 2.00 p.m when again the file was taken up, respondent took U-turn and stated that he owes nothing to the petitioner and there is no liability against him to pay any amount to the petitioner and hence the learned trial court directed the petitioner to adduce the evidence; that since the learned trial court on one hand reflected in its order dated 23-02-2018 that the respondent had admitted issuance of cheque in his statement under Section 242 Cr.P.C. and had also made certain payments in pursuance of his statement for paying the cheque amount in installments, but when on 23-02- 2018, the respondent after seeking time of two hours for bringing the payment, made a submission before the trial court that he owed no liability and the learned trial court directed the petitioner to adduce the evidence.

(3.) Petitioner thereafter filed revision petition against order dated 23.02.2018 before 1st additional Sessions Judge, Jammu which was dismissed on 10.7.2018 on the ground that order impugned was interlocutory and revision was not maintainable.