GOPAL MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2009-8-4
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on August 25,2009

GOPAL MISHRA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

NARAYAN CHAKRABORTY VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ASHOK KUMAR SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2013-11-90] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application for quashing the order dated 9.6.2004 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate. Deoghar in P.C.R. Case No. 50 of 2004 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 1402 of 2004/1208 of 2005 whereby and where under he took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act ( hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act'). Petitioner further pray for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of aforesaid case.
(2.)It appears that a complaint petition filed by the O.R No. 2 alleging therein that the petitioner and complainant jointly took some contract work at Deoghar in Minor Irrigation and Irrigation Department and agreed to share the profit equally. It is further alleged that on 25.9.2003 petitioner issued a cheque of Rs.30,000/- in the name of complainant. It is further alleged that the said cheque was submitted for encashment in State Bank of India, Bazar Branch, Deoghar but the same was returned to the complainant with endorsement that there is insufficient fund. It is further stated that complainant brought the said fact to the notice of petitioner and on his advice; the cheque was again presented before the SBI Bazar Branch, Deoghar for encashment. It is stated that the said cheque was sent to Main Branch of SBI for collection on 8.2.2004, again same was returned to the complainant on 15.3.2004 with endorsement that there is insufficient fund. Thereafter a lawyers notice was served to the petitioner on 19.3.2004. It is further alleged that even after receiving the notice, the petitioner had not given any heed to the request of complainant (O.R No. 2), hence the present complaint petition filed in the Court.
(3.)It appears that learned court below took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the N. 1. Act and issued summon to the accused-petitioner. It further appears that the petitioner appeared in the court below and filed an application praying therein that the cognizance was taken beyond the period of limitation, hence the proceeding be dropped against the accused-petitioner. The said application of the petitioner rejected by learned court below vide order dated 20.6.2005, thereafter the present case has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C for quashing the order of cognizance and also for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with aforesaid case.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.