BINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel appearing for the O.P. No. 2.

(2.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dtd. 22/1/2020, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dhanbad, in C.P. Case No. 2421 of 2016, whereby the petition, filed by the petitioner under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. has been rejected, now the case is pending in that Court.

(3.) Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the O.P. No. 2 has filed the complaint against the petitioner under Sec. 138 of the NI Act, alleging therein that O.P. No. 2 had supplied GP sheets on 22/6/2016, vide invoice No. TI/8/2016-17, having the quantity 850 Kgs for total amount of Rs.49,266.00. He submits that two cheques were issued by the petitioner dtd. 18/7/2016, which were dishonoured by the Bank on presentation. According to him, the said cheques were issued as security cheques. He further submits that at para-20, O.P. No. 2 deposed that in the balance sheet of IT Return dtd. 31/3/2017, the name of petitioner has been mentioned in the column of sundry debtors for Rs.49,266.00 and at para-22, the O.P. No. 2 also deposed that he prepares sales register and every details are mentioned from 1/4/2016 to 31/3/2017. He further submits that at para-23, O.P. No. 2 deposed that he can file the balance sheet dtd. 31/3/2017 on the query of the Court and at para-24, O.P. No. 2 also deposed that on demand by the court, he can file sale register. He further submits that statement of the petitioner was recorded on 16/4/2019 under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and on 9/5/2019, a petition under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner and the rejoinder was also filed on 1/8/2019 and thereafter the concerned court has rejected the petition, filed under Sec. 91 Cr.P.C. on 22/1/2020, on the ground that this petition has only been filed to delay the trial.