9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act is pending before the competent Authority, therefore, this petition is not maintainable. Criminal Proceeding under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for dishonour of cheque is maintainable - petition dismissed. - CRMP No. 1025 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 1-4-2022 - Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey For the Petitioner : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ravindra Agrawal, Adv ORDER Heard. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the Complaint Case No. 230/2021 pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent filed a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the case on 27.09.2021 for reply to the application under Section 309 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, this petition has been filed for quashing the Complaint Case No. 230/2021 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur and for direction to investigate into the matter on the report of petitioner before Station in-charge of Police Station-Pathalgaon, District-Jashpur in the interest of justice. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the prayer of petitioner and submits that the proceeding of complaint case for dishonour of cheque against the petitioner is maintainable under Section 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the petitioner has admitted the issuance of cheque, therefore, the petition is liable to be dism ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant and the cheque issued by the respondent No. 2 was presented. On such cheque being dishonoured, cause of action had arisen for issuing a notice and presenting the criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the payment not being made. The further defence as to whether the loan had been discharged as agreed by respondent No. 2 and in that circumstance the cheque which had been issued as security had not remained live for payment subsequent thereto etc. at best can be a defence for the respondent No. 2 to be put forth and to be established in the trial. In any event, it was not a case for the Court to either refuse to take cognizance or to discharge the respondent No. 2 in the manner it has been done by the High Court. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
