SUGANCHAND ARYA Vs. MANGAL MURTI MINERAL INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order dated 13.8.2004 and perused the entire record of the case and more particularly the complaint filed by the complainant.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that according to the complaint itself, the essential ingredients for constituting offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is totally absent, therefore, no case for offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner, who is father of co-accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner is only guarantor of co-accused, who is son of petitioner. Therefore, in absence of any cogent evidence against the petitioner, the charge framed against the petitioner for offence under Section 420 I.P.C. deserves to be set aside.

(3.) In my opinion, no offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioner. However, if any, civil liability is there against the petitioner, then, for the same, the respondent can file suit against him but no evidence with regard to commission of offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is on record for proceeding against the petitioner. It is also obvious from the complaint that the cheque, which was dishonoured, was issued by Jaint Kumar-son of the petitioner, who is facing trial before the trial court. The petitioner cannot be held responsible for offence under section 138 of N.I. Act because all the allegations are against Jaint Kumar for committing offence under Section 138 N.I. Act.