DULAL CHAKRABORTY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner. Dulal Chakraborty, has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 972 of 2004 on 1.3.2005 whereby and where under the cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 138 of the Ne gotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as the "Act") against the petitioner and he was put on trial.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the petitioner as well as the opposite party No. 2, Chaitali Dutta, entered into an agreement to start a business for supply of Chemical Equipments and Appliances on the terms and conditions settled between them and pursuant to that partnership deed was executed to carry on the business at Royal Choice Collections Shop No. 3, Laxmi Market, Lalpur, Ranchi. It was agreed between the parties that the first party/opposite party No. 2 would deposit a sum of Rs. 1.50 lakh whereas second party/petitioner will be engaging himself for acquiring jobs and orders for supplying chemicals and appliances. The profit and loss was agreed to be shared equally besides other conditions mentioned in the deed of partnership. It would not be put of place to mention that the petitioner herein was the second party to the partnership deed of the firm M/s. Unisales Scientific Suppliers whereas the opposite party No. 2-complainant was the first party and. that share in the business would be fifty-fifty.

(3.) ALL the three cheques were presented by the opposite party No. 2 in Indian Overseas Bank, Ranchi but all three were dishonoured and re turned to the opposite party No. 2 with the advice that there was no sufficient fund in the account of the petitioner-second party. It is alleged that the petitioner-second party was informed orally on 12.8.2004 and 20.8. 2004 about the dishonour of the said cheques issued by him and demand was made by the first party/opposite party No. 2 for payment of Rs. 2.61.500/-. In the same sequence the opposite party No. 2 got a legal notice served on the petitioner on 1.9.2004 by registered post for payment of the said amount and also claimed an interest thereon @ 24% per annum. The petitioner refused to receive the notice and, therefore, it was returned by the post office to the advocate of the opposite party No. 2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi after finding a prima facie case took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the said Act against the petitioner herein in the complaint filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 first party of the partnership deed.