JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Arunachal Pradesh and Mr. G. Taloh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This is an application under section 482 of Cr.P.C. r/w Section 226 of Constitution of India for quashing of order dated 16.06.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Yupia in G.R.Case No. 477/2021(corresponding to Naharlagun P.S. Case No.95/2021) under Section 465/193 IPC.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he had taken a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only from the respondent No.2 on 14.09.2015 for a period of three months at an interest @ 8% per month. In this regard, a money receipt was executed by the petitioner on 14.09.2015. After the expiry of three months, the petitioner offered to return an amount to Rs.6,20,000/- to the respondent No.2 who refused to accept the said amount demanding an additional amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner had received a notice from the counsel of respondent No. 2 demanding Rs. 5,00,000/- with agreed interest from the petitioner. On inquiry, the respondent No.2 intimated the petitioner that he had to pay Rs.7,00,000/-which would include interest of Rs.2,00,000/-. Subsequently, the petitioner on 08.06.2018 issued a cheque of Rs.7,00,000/- in favor of the respondent No.2 being cheque No. 620361 of State Bank of India, Itanagar Branch and the said cheque was handed over to one Mr. Tabit Tapak, advocate, who was acting as a mediator between the parties and Mr. Tabit Tapak had also executed a money receipt as a mark of acknowledgment of the receipt of the cheque in question.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that though the cheque was signed on 08.06.2018 but despite his having a bonafide intention to issue the cheque on the same day, due to inadvertent mistake, the petitioner wrote ‘6’ instead of ‘8’ i.e. 2016 on the top of the cheque. The mistake was overlooked by both the petitioner and the advocate Mr. Tabit Tapak who had executed the money receipt mentioning the date as 08.06.2018 as well. According to the petitioner, this was purely an inadvertent and unintentional error.

5. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 has approached before the Extra Assistant Commissioner, Itanagar(herein after EAC) for settlement of money dispute by convening a mel proceeding. Accordingly, on 15.10.2018, the petitioner received a ‘mel order’ from the EAC that a mel proceeding has been fixed 20.10.2018 for settlement of money dispute between the petitioner and one Taking Talom who is the husband of the respondent No.2.

6. By challenging the order dated 15.08.2018, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court and accordingly a notice was issued to the respondents. Though, a request was made to keep the ‘mel’ in abeyance till the disposal of writ petition but an experte order was passed by the EAC directing the petitioner to return a sum of Rs.20,20,000/- including the principal amount and further directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount to the EAC, Naharlagun within a period of 15 days from the date of the mel/Kebang decision. In view of the final decision taken in the mel proceeding, the writ petition became infructuous and the same was withdrawn on 12.12.2018.

7. Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 08.07.2019, whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against the petitioner for not complying with the mel decision of 02.11.2018. In reply, against the show cause notice, the petitioner has filed his reply on 16.07.2019 and clarified that though the petitioner had expressed his intent to pay an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 but she had refused to accept it. Subsequently, the EAC served several notices to the petitioner by directing the petitioner to appear before him for payment of Rs.20,20,000/- as per dated 02.11.2018. As the petitioner