NISHANT MATHUR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been preferred under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein that the order dtd. 8/1/2019 passed by the Court of Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Criminal Complaint No. 36/2019, titled as Dr. Devendra Kumar Garg v. Nishant Mathur, be set aside, as the trial Court has wrongly taken cognizance for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Rajendra Prasad, ld. Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that Smt. Sudha Mathur, the mother of petitioner - Nishant Mathur had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant-respondent No. 2 - Dr. Devendra Kumar Garg. The ld. Senior Advocate has further submitted that since the loan of the L.I.C. Housing Finance Limited was outstanding in terms of the agreement to sell, the sale-deed could not be executed and the compromise dtd. 20/10/2018 was executed between the parties. The ld. Senior Advocate has contended that in terms of the compromise dtd. 20/10/2018 (Annexure-5), undated cheques were issued in favour of the complainant by the petitioner and his family members. The ld. Senior Advocate has further contended that as per agreement to sell, all cheques were to be presented after 30/4/2019, the date incorporated in the compromise relied by the petitioner as Annexure-5. The ld. Senior Advocate has pleaded that it is specified in the compromise that the cheques were to be presented, if there is a breach on the part of the signatories to the compromise. The ld. Senior Advocate has further pleaded that the cheques were undated and the same could not be presented by the complainant on or before 30/4/2019. The ld. Senior Advocate has submitted that on or before 30/4/2019 the cheques were not be construed towards the payment of legally enforceable debt or consideration. Lastly, ld. Senior Advocate has contended that in the notice issued by the petitioner (Annexure-9) and in the complaint (Annexure-11), the complainant has made a reference to the compromise dtd. 20/10/2018.

(3.) I have heard ld. Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner.