9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 22.11.2010, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in connection with Complaint Case No. 1914 of 2010, by which the court below had taken cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereafter, issued summon against the petitioner. 4. The facts lie in a very narrow compass. The complainant, in the complaint petition, has stated that he has some business deal with the Company of the accused. He stated that for one of the said deals two cheques bearing nos. 083216 and 555710 amounting to Rs. 17 lakhs and 3 lakhs respectively, were handed over to the petitioner. It is further stated that thereafter, cash was arranged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, he submits that Para-8 of the complaint petition clearly suggests that the complainant knew that his cheques got dishonored and, thereafter, to save his skin and to create his defence, he has filed this complaint case. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Eicher Tractor Ltd. & Ors.- versus- Harihar Singh & Another, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 763" has held that a counter case in respect of a cheque, which is a subject matter of 138 N.I. Act, cannot be allowed to sustain. Mr. Nilesh Kumar further submits that in a proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act, the complainant of this case was convicted and his appeal was also dismissed. Thus, the defence of the complainant, which he has taken by way of filing this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 2010, which was filed on 25.02.2010, under Section 138 N.I. Act. What the complainant narrated in the entire complaint petition, is nothing but his defence to the case, filed against him under Section 138 N.I. Act, referred to above. The court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur by a detailed judgment, considered the case of the complainant, (who was the accused therein), and has ultimately, convicted him vide judgment dated 30.07.2012. The appeal against the said judgment bearing Cr. Appeal No 218 of 2012, filed by the complainant of this case, was also dismissed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 20.01.2018. This clearly goes to show that the defence of O.P. No. 2, by way of filing a complaint, which is the subject mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
