LAVLEENA @ POOJA KAHNDIYA Vs. BHUPINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged the order dated 2.8.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (the 'Act' for short).

(2.) THE Brief facts of the case are that according to complainant -respondent, Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, the accused petitioner -Smt. Lavleena @ Pooja Kahndiya - petitioner -Smt. Lavleena @ Pooja Kahndiya -had borrowed Rs. 5 lacs from her. In order to repay the said loan amount, Smt. Lavleena had issued a cheque, namely cheque No. 1085542 dated 30th April, 2010 in favour of the complainant -respondent. However, when the cheque was submitted for encashment, it was returned with the endorsement that "the account is closed". Hence, the cheque was dishonored. Subsequently the complainant -respondent filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate for offence under Section 138 of the Act. By order dated 2nd August, 2010, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) FIRSTLY , Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act deals with a cheque drawn by a person "on an account maintained by him." However, the said provision does not deal with a cheque drawn by a person "on an account which has already been closed by the said person." In the present case, the account was already closed. Hence, the dishonour of cheque would not bring the case within the ambit of Section 138 of the Act. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State of (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2009 Cr.LR. (SC) 414). Secondly, the learned Magistrate has passed the cognizance order in a mechanical manner. For, the order is a proforma order where certain lines have been inserted in writing, while the rest of the order has been typed. Thus, according to the learned counsel, it is a cyclostyled order. Therefore, according to him, the order has been passed without application of mind. Hence, the order deserves to be interfered with.