Joginder Sing vs State Of Jharkhand And Another

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, the learned counsel appearing through video-conferencing on behalf of the petitioner and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned State counsel.

This petition has been filed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 21.05.2008 in connection with Complaint Case No.C/1 731 of 2008 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

The complaint petition has been filed alleging therein by the complainant, the petitioner and one other namely Indrashan Yadav were running a dairy business and it is alleged that both petitioner and Indrashan Yadav are partner in the business and had taken friendly loan from complainant and it is alleged that Indrashan Yadav issued a cheque of Rs. One lac in favour of the complainant which has been dishonoured when the cheque was presented by the complaint due to insufficient fund and thereafter the complainant made several attempts to contact the accused persons for realization of his cheque amount but they avoided him on some pretest or the other and thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer’s notice demanding therein to refund the cheque amount within 15 days but the accused persons did not make payment to the complainant however the petitioner (accused no.2) made a reply through his lawyer denying all allegations and refused to make payment against the cheque amount to the complainant.

Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not signed the cheque and one of the partners has sighed the cheque and in that view of the matter the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that in view of above, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance may kindly be quashed.

The said argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is being resisted by Mrs. Priya Shrestha, the learned State counsel on the ground that cognizance has been taken by order dated 21.05.2008 whereas the present petition has been filed on 31.7.2013 and evidence has already been completed 22.02.2012. She submits that in view of the pendency of this petition, the case of one of the co-accused has been bifurcated and the co-accused has already been declared absconder and she submits that the status report also suggest that and on this ground, she submits that the case is fit to be rejected.

In view of the above, it appears that what has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that is his defence and further belatedly the present case has been filed challenging the order taking cognizance. For filing a petition under section 482 Cr.PC there is no limitation prescribed but the application is required to be filed within a reasonable time. The allegations are there against the petitioner as well as another accused person who has already been declared absconder and further the evidence has already been closed in the year 2012 itself and thereafter the present case has been filed and in view of the above facts, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner can only be appreciated by the learned court in the trial.

Accordingly, Cr.M.P. No.2115 of 2013 is dismissed.

Interim order stands vacated.

Pending petition if any also stands disposed of accordingly.