9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the offence punishable Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the petitioner, pending the complaint the petitioner issued another seven cheques to the tune of ₹ 3,25,689/- and all the cheques were encashed by the respondent. Therefore, the entire dues as alleged in the complainant have been settled by the petitioner and even then, the respondent refused to withdraw the complainant. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that pending the complaint, cheques were issued in respect of other dues pertaining to the cheques in the present case. Therefore, the disputed fact is that the entire amount has been settled by the petitioner. The petition is devoid of merits and dismissed. - Cr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 02.08.2018 IOB 306421 ₹ 14,733/- 4 17.08.2018 IOB 306422 ₹ 48,257/- 5 05.09.2018 IOB 306423 ₹ 50,000/- 6 15.10.2018 IOB 306424 ₹ 58,990/- 7 15.10.2018 IOB 306425 ₹ 73,707/- Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present petition. 4. Heard M.R. Ramamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.S. Sairaman the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. On perusal of records it is seen the respondent is the complainant who lodged a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act as against the petitioner and others. The petitioner herein arrayed as A3 who is representing the first accused company, as Managing Director. On purchase of the Electrical goods, the petitioner and others issued 4 cheques to the tune of ₹ 3,25,687/- to the respondent. All the cheques were returned dishonoured, and the respondent proceeded with the complaint for the offence punishable Under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law. 7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing in respect of the very same issue in Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019 in the case of Central Bureau of Invstigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, wherein, it has been held as follows: 19. After perusing the impugned order and on hearing the submissions made by the learned senior counsels on both sides, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded findi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot constitute the offence alleged. .............. A look at the complaint filed by the appellant would show that the appellant had incorporated the ingredients necessary for prosecuting the respondents for the offences alleged. The question whether the appellant will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage.................... The above judgments are squarely applicable to this case and as such, the disputed question of the facts cannot be considered by this Court in this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.Pc. Hence, all the grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered by letting evidence during trial before the Trial Court. 9. Therefore, the petition is devoid o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
