9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice and service of SPC. 2. Respondent No. 3/State is a formal party. 3. Respondent No. 1 Bano Bi filed a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 Rehan Khan; alleging that certain land was sold by respondent No. 1 in favour of the petitioner in which consideration of Rs. 4 Lakhs was given to respondent No. 1 by cheque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used. Hence, the order dated 8-2-2010 does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. 5. The petitioner preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the order passed in Criminal Case No. 1418/2010 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Ashok Lalwani has vehemently argued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the drawer of the cheque was the respondent No. 2, who had drawn the cheque bearing number "224385" for Rs. 4 Lakhs in the bank account maintained by him in HDFC Bank, Bharat Talkies, Hamidia Road Branch, Bhopal, towards the consideration of the sale. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 was the drawer of the cheque. 9. The Supreme Court in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for discharge in whole or part, of any debt or other liability. 11. Thus, in the light of the above legal position, this Court is of the view that the respondent No. 2 has signed and issued the cheque is only liable under section 138 of the Act, even though the sale deed was executed in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
