ASHAPURA CONSTRUCTION Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Cr. Revision No.45/08, whereby the orders dated 7.5.2007 and 7.8.2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Cr.Original Case No.189/07, taking cognizance and reading out the accusation of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to the petitioner, have been upheld. The present misc. petition has been preferred by the accused petitioner seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance as well as for complaint filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) The respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi with the allegation that the petitioner had given a cheque of Rs.22,300/- drawn on the Bank of Rajasthan, Sirohi to the complainant against a legally enforceable debt. It was stated that when the cheque was presented for payment by the complainant in his bank, the same was returned with the endorsement of 'stop payment' on the basis of the instructions given by the petitioner to the bank. The respondent No.2 filed a complaint against the petitioner after giving the due notice as per the Act and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, on the basis of the complaint by his order dated 7.5.2007, proceeded to summon the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. After the petitioner appeared before the Court below, the accusation of the offence was read out to him on 7.8.2007. These two orders of taking cognizance and reading out the accusation to the petitioner, as stated above, have been upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in a criminal revision filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The orders of the learned Courts below are assailed by the petitioner by way of the instant misc. petition contending therein that in this case, the cheque, which has been bounced, was a cheque issued to be payable to self. It is contended that a case, wherein the cheque has been issued to self, the bouncing thereof cannot lead to the prosecution of the person issuing the same for the offence under Section 138 of the Act. It is, therefore, contended in the petition that the proceedings of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act deserve to be quashed.