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 whereunder the cognizance of the offence was taken under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981 (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 Chemicals 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. 1,50,000 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 beside other conditions mentioned in the deed of partnership. It would not be out 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. In terms of the partnership deed it is alleged that the second party requested the first party/opposite party No. 2 from time to time to invest capital and pursuant to that the opposite party No. 2 paid a total sum of Rs. 2,61,500 in cash to the petitioner on different dates for the business purpose. The partnership deed was amended on 3.3.2004 by mutual agreement to increase the amount of capital to be invested by the first party to the tune of. Rs. 3,00,000 (Ext. 2). It is alleged that when the first party opposite party No. 2 put forth the demand for repayment of the said amount of Rs. 2,61,500 the second party petitioner issued three cheques in the manner stated below drawn on his bankers, Indian Overseas Bank, Ranchi and handed over the same to the first Party-opposite party 2. Cheque No. and Date 991342, dated 5.4.2004 991341, dated 5.4.2004 589598, dated 5.3.2004 Rs. 40,000 Rs. 31,500 Rs. 1,90,000 Payee of the Cheque self self Chaitali Dutta (First party)

(3.) All the three cheques were presented by the opposite party No. 2 in Indian Overseas Bank, Ranchi but all three were dishonoured and returned 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.