9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 425X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.476 of 2001 (Shri Krishan Agarwal versus Surendra Kumar), under Sections 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and 420 IPC pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras and the orders dated 14.12.2001, 11.11.2005 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras and the order dated 20.11.2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge / FTC No.2, District Hathras. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent. He has committed no offence and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has not issued any cheque in favour of complainant-opposite party no.2 herein and from the perusal of application / complaint no case is made out. It is further submitted that in complaint no where is mentioned that why cheque wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noured on the ground that there is no account in the Bank. Complainant sent a registered notice dated 20.12.2000 to accused which was served him on 25.12.2000, despite service of notice accused-applicant did not pay the amount of cheque and close his account in the Bank. Trial Court recorded the statement of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and on the basis of statement and other material placed before it, issued the impugned summoning order. 6. Thereafter accused-applicant moved a review application before the Court which has also been dismissed. 7. Being aggrieved with the summoning order and order dated 11.11.2005 rejecting the review application, accused-applicant filed revision before the Sessions Judge which has also been dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made out against the applicant. 11. In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi & Ors., (1999) 3 SCC 259, Court has held that it is not necessary that a complainant should verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging. If the factual foundation for the offence has been laid in the complaint, the court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings during the investigation stage merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated with details. 12. In Md. Allauddin Khan Vs. The State of Bihar and others, (2019) 6 SCC 107, Supreme Court observed as to what should be examined by High Court in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and in paras 15, 16 and 17 said as under : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "It is too late in the day to seek reference to any authority for the proposition that while invoking the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing a complaint or a charge, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that constitute certain offences complained of. The Court may also be entitled to see (i) whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not; and (ii) whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not constitute the offence alleged." 14. Having considered the rival submissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
