HARJINDER SINGH S/O SHRI AMARJEET SINGH, BY CASTE Vs. BALVINDER KAUR W/O LATE SHRI JASVINDER PAL SINGH, BY CASTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioner has laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking quashment of complaint case No.428 of 2013 (Balvinder Kaur v. Harjinder Singh) pending before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisinghnagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The ancillary prayer is also made in the petition for annulment of impugned order dated 10.08.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned revisional Court') affirming order dated 07.04.2015 passed by the learned trial Court.

(2.) The facts apposite for the purpose of this petition are that respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with the specific allegation that petitioner has issued cheque to her in discharge of his debt or liability and when the said cheque was presented before the Bank it was dishonored due to insufficiency of fund in the Bank account of the petitioner. Learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner and presently the proceedings before the learned trial Court are going on. During pendency before learned trial Court, an endeavour was made by the petitioner for staying proceeding in the matter precisely on the ground that he has preferred a petition under Section 6(1) of the Rajasthan Relief of Agricultural Indebtedness Act, 1957 (for short, 'Act of 1957')against the complainant and the same is pending before Debt Relief Court. The petitioner has averred in the application that in all the total debt of the petitioner is Rs.10,000/- only and the complainant has manipulated cheque by mentioning huge amount of Rs.2,50,000/-and therefore until application under Section 6(1) of the Act of 1957 is finally adjudicated by the said Court further proceeding in the complaint case be stayed. Learned trial Court, after considering the prayer of the petitioner, by its order dated 07.04.2015, declined the said prayer. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner invoked revisional jurisdiction and the learned revisional Court, by the order impugned dated 10.08.2015, rejected the revision petition. Learned revisional Court made sincere endeavour to examine correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned trial Court and while relying on some of the binding legal precedents has declined to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders and also made endeavour to examine the provisions contained under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.