D.D. MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State. The respondent No. 2, who is the complainant, has not appeared in spite of service of notice upon him twice, once in the admission stage and again in the hearing stage. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against him in Complaint case No. 307 of 2003, 'hen-pending before Shri B.B. Gautam, learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, and has also prayed for quashing the order dated 8.1.2004 passed therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, whereby, the Court below has found sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and process was ordered to be issued against the petitioner.'

(2.) The facts of the case lie in short compass. The petitioner was then working as General Manager in M/s. Lemos Cement Ltd, Khalari, where the complainant was an employee. The said complainant was dismissed from service and two cheques were issued by the Company for the amount of Rs. 4138/- and Rs. 6150/-, in favour of the complainant, being salary for one month in lieu of notice. It is alleged that the said cheques were deposited in the bank, but the cheques bounced and thereafter in" spite of notice, the amount was not paid to the complainant. With these allegations, the complaint petition was filed in the Court below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheques were given to the complainant on 9.4.2003 and the petitioner was intimated about the bouncing of the cheques on 16.4.2003 and soon thereafter, the petitioner got the demand drafts of the said amounts deposited in the bank account of the complainant on 19.4.2003, which was well within the statutory period. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the continuance of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner in the said complaint case No. 307 of 2003 is absolutely illegal and even the order passed therein on 8.1.2004, finding sufficient material against the petitioner for proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act, was also absolutely illegal and fit to be quashed.