CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Ajit Singh Oberoi vs Malvinder Singh

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 23 July 1996 · Citation: (1997) 1 CivCC 263

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Sudhalkar, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) — Section 138
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1106/M of 1992
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 377 words

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This is a petition for quashing the proceedings arising out of the complaint dated 4.6.1990 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh in Criminal Case No. 70 dated 11.6.1990 and the order dated 5.10.1990 passed by the said Court summoning the Petitioner to appear in the Court in person as an accused, for an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2.

When the case came up for hearing on 2.7.96 neither the Petitioner nor anybody on his behalf was present. However, in the interest of justice, the case was adjourned to 9.7.96 on which date also, none appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.

3.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Respondent and perused the record of the case.

4.

The Petitioner has contended that no notice has been served and that the notice was intentionally sent at wrong address. However, it is a matter of evidence and the Petitioner can prove from the evidence of the Respondent that the address given in the alleged notice and the address at which he stays are different. Moreover a perusal of the petition shows that in paragraph 11 (a) the Petitioner has stated that he was issued notice u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5.

It is also contended in the petition that the dishonouring of cheque is only a civil liability. However, in view of the provisions of Section 138 of the Act this contention deserves to be negatived. Similarly ground (c) of paragraph 11 of the petition also deserves to be negated for the same reason.

6.

It is further contended that the provision of Section 138 of the Act is not applicable to the post dated cheques but the Petitioner ha snot shown as to how he can substantiate his statement. He has further contended that the offence will only arise if the amount is not paid within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice and that no presumption of service of notice can be raised. This point also may be raised at the time of trial of the case and I do not find it proper to quash the complaint at this stage.

7.

In view of the above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed.