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
8 paragraphs · 383 wordsRavindra Maithani, J
Present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code) has been filed by the petitioner to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 3505 of 2017, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), Police Station Doiwala, District Dehradun, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate/3rd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun.
In the instant case, a complaint under Section 138 of the Act has been filed by the respondent no.2 against the petitioner. After inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 of the Code, petitioner has been summoned to answer the accusations under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved, the instant petition.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent no.2 and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner has always been ready and willing to pay the amount of the cheque but respondent is not accepting the money. It is further argued that, in fact, a notice was also replied by the petitioner, conveying it to the respondent no.2, that he may accept the money involved in the cheque. A reference has been made to annexure no. 7, which is dated 27.10.2017.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would urge that once the cognizance was taken against the petitioner, thereafter, notice dated 27.10.2017 was filed.
No illegality has been indicated in the summoning order, which may warrants interference of this Court. It is admitted, in fact, by the petitioner that he issued a cheque to respondent no.2 on an account maintained by him and according to the complaint, when it was presented to the Bank, it was dishonored with the note "insufficient funds". According to the complaint, notice was sent on 19.06.2017, which the petitioner did not respond. Thereafter, complaint has been filed. If at any subsequent point of time, the petitioner expressed his intention to pay the money, it would not make summoning order illegal. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference in warranted in this matter and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
The petition under Section 482 of the Code is dismissed accordingly.