(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the quashment of the entire criminal proceeding including the order impugned dated 13.06.2005 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate having been satisfied with the materials on record after due enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. found a prima facie case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and directed summons to be issued to the petitioner and further for quashment of the order impugned dated 03.03.2006 passed by Shri R.K. Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi and the subsequent proceeding of the petitioner Manoj Kumar.
(2.) THE brief fact of the case was that the complainant O.P.No. 2 lodged a written complaint on 27.11.2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi alleging, inter alia that the petitioner herein, in order to clear some pending dues issued two cheques bearing No. 256261 dated 25.5.2004 of Rs. 13,210/ - and another cheque bearing No. 256265 dated 28.05.2004 of Rs. 21,000/ - to the complainant O.P.No. 2. On the presentation of the aforesaid cheques by the complainant, it were dishonoured for non -availability of sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. Accordingly, a legal notice was sent to the petitioner by the O.P.No. 2 followed by a reminder but since the petitioner did not pay the amount, the accused -petitioner committed offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 according to the complainant's case.
(3.) THE petitioners came to know through the legal notice dated 10.06.2004 that the complainant had illegally presented the said cheques for encashment which were dishonored and the petitioner was called upon by the said legal notice to pay the amount of the cheques within 15 days. Learned Counsel submitted that as the petitioner was sought to receive the said legal notice, he immediately replied on 15.06.2004 wherein the factum of alleged dues was specifically denied. Yet, it was requested to return the cheques and abstain from harassing the petitioner but without any response. The petitioner received another legal demand notice dated 20.10.2004 for the same and similar cause of action with the averment that the cheques in question were again presented and the same were again dishonoured and the demand for payment in cash was reiterated with the caution that he would be indulged in litigation failing to make payment.