SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SAROJNEI SAXENA
Mahabir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Chandan Manerjee – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: R.K Jain.
For the Respondent: R.C. Setia & Sidharath Swaroop.

JUDGMENT

Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J. - The petitioner has filed this petition under section 482, Cr. P.C. to quash the complaint filed against him under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and under section 420 IPC, in which summoning order has also been passed against him on October 12, 1989.

2.The respondent-complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner purchased goods from the respondent and issued two post-dated cheques dated 12.4.1989 for Rs. 30,000/- and dated 8.6.1989 for Rs 3. 33,051.94. The petitioner also executed an agreement in favour of the respondent. When these cheques we're presented in the bank for encashment they were bounced by the bank and the remark given was "Refer to drawer". The respondent gave a notice to the petitioner to make the payment, but despite this when no payment was made he filed the complaint against the petitioner on July 18, 1989. After recording preliminary evidence, the trial Magistrate passed the impugned summoning order.

3. The petitioner's learned counsel contended that no notice was given to the petitioner regarding cheque dated June 8, 1989, for Rs. 33,051,94, when it was dishonoured by the











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top