ARJUN SINGH Vs. R.T.D.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer in Criminal Case No.120/2006 for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and challenging the order dated 10.11.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer reading out the accusations to the petitioner for the aforesaid offence as affirmed in revision by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer by his order dated 22.1.2009.

(3.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant invited tenders for the operation of a travel counter at Moomal Hotel, Jaisalmer for a period of three years. The petitioner participated in the tender proceedings and on being declared to be a successful bidder, an agreement was signed between the parties as per which, the license fees for operating the travel counter was fixed at Rs.6111/- per month. The petitioner is said to have given post dated cheques to the complainant as advance towards the monthly lease money. It appears that dispute arose between the parties interse right at the inception regarding the place where the counter was to be erected and it is petitioner's case that the complainant failed to hand over the possession of the counter to him whereupon the petitioner instructed his bank to stop payment of the post dated cheques. There was an arbitration clause between the parties interse and accordingly, the matter was referred to the sole arbitrator under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The arbitrator decided the dispute in favour of the petitioner vide award dated 27.1.2006. In the interim, the complainant submitted a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaisalmer after the advance cheque given by the petitioner was bounced because of the instruction given by the petitioner to his bank for stopping payment of the said cheque. The petitioner has been summoned in the said complaint and pursuant to his appearing before the learned Magistrate, the accusation of the offence has also been read over vide order dated 10.11.2008. The petitioner filed a revision challenging the order dated 10.11.2008 but the revisional court has affirmed the order dated 10.11.2008 vide its order dated 22.1.2009 and hence, the instant misc. petition has been filed seeking quashing of orders impugned as well as proceedings of the complaint filed against the petitioner.