Point of Law : It is evident that petitioner did not maintain any account in Corporation Bank, though respondent firm has claimed that cheque in question was issued by the petitioner to be drawn in Corporation Bank, Branch.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D. P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Anix Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, readwith Sections 401/397, challenging the legality and maintainability of the proceedings of C. R. Case No. 1825/2021, registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short N.I. Act), 1881, which is pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Assam.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition is that;

3.1. The petitioner is the Managing Director of a private limited company, named as ”Chu-Khumur Wine Pvt. Ltd.” which is the holder of an IMFL “OFF” Shop license. The respondent is a Partnership Firm, which carries the business of Wholesale of Liquor (IMFL & Beer). During the course of business, the Company of the petitioner used to purchase liquor from the respondent. While purchasing liquor from the respondent, the petitioner always used to transfer the amount to the respondent by way of the RTGS/NEFT bank transactions, and only after transfer of the amount, the respondent Firm used to issue transport pass and sent the liquor to the petitioner. The petitioner never purchased liquor from the respondent on credit. As a matter of fact, the petitioner issued a letter dated 10.07.2007 to the respondent inter alia requesting not to issue any IMFL/Beer transport pass against any excise permit in respect of the Company of the petitioner on credit. It was further intimated by the said letter that, if the same were issued on credit basis, for that the company of the petitioner would not be liable.

3.2. The business transaction of the petitioner with the respondent continued till June, 2020, and after that the petitioner Company had not purchased liquor from the respondent. However, the petitioner received a Legal Notice dated 29.04.2021 only on 12.08.2021 issued by the Advocate of the respondent addressed to ‘Smti. Sikha Dey’ by stating that in pursuance to liquidate some legally enforceable debt, the said ‘Sikha Dey’ issued a cheque dated 23.03.2021, bearing No.334960 amounting to Rs.5,95,006/-(Rupees Five lakhs ninety-five thousand six) only drawn on Corporation Bank, Jagiroad. Thereafter, when the respondent presented the said cheque in his account at HDFC Bank Ltd. Khanapara, for collection of the amount, the said cheque returned unpaid due to “Other Reasons (Invalid Account)”. Accordingly, by the said Notice served under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, the respondent called upon the petitioner to make payment of the previously mentioned cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The said notice was sent by registered post vide Article No.RS563935476IN. The petitioner had received the notice on 09.08.2021, though the notice was issued on 29.04.2021.

3.3. On receiving the said notice, the petitioner sent a reply dated 19.08.2021, through his Advocate denying all the statements made in the notice dated 29.04.2021 and stated that she had not issued the cheque bearing No.334960 dated 23.03.2021, drawn on Corporation Bank, Jagiroad Branch. Further, it was also stated that the petitioner is the Director of Chu-Khumur Wine (P) Ltd, which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, and not a Proprietor of Chukhumur Wine (P) Ltd. It is further stated, that the petitioner does not have any account in the Corporation Bank. More so, the notice dated 29.04.2021 was addressed to ‘Smti. Sikha Dey’, Proprietor of ChuKhumur Wine (P) Ltd., whereas, the name of the present petitioner is “Smti. Shikha Dey” and not ‘Sikha Dey’. It is further categorically stated in the reply that, if someone has issued the aforesaid cheque in the name of the petitioner, in that case the seal and signature of the petitioner has been forged by someone with ulterior motive and the petitioner is no way connected with the issuance of the sa