Honble KAPUR, J.—The non-petitioner No. 2 had filed a complaint in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and Section 420 IPC. On this complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offence under Section 138 of the Act on 8.9.1992 and directed that the accused be summoned. The five petitioners who were the accused in the complaint, have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint as well as the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance on the complaint.

(2) The facts will be given briefly so that the legal points which have been raised by the parties can be appreciated. The non-petitioner No. 2 is a Cement Manufacturing Company having its factory at Sitapur, Tehsil Nawalgarh. The petitioner No. 1 is a company having its registered office at Bulandshahar U.P. and is primarily marketing cement, fertilizers, scooters, etc. The petitioner No. 2 is the Managing Director of the Company, while the petitioners No. 3, 4 and 5 are its Directors.

(3) The dealings between the parties started in June, 1991. The petitioner No.2 Company purchased cement from the complainant and the cement was to be despatched to the dealers in the name of the petitioner. The payment for the cement was to be made by the petitioner. After May, 1992 dispute arose between the parties.

(4) According to the complainant, petitioner No. 2 gave a cheque for a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- on account of the amount due as cost of the cement supplied by the complainant, and this cheque when submitted for collection in the Bank, was dishonoured as there were no sufficient funds in the account of the petitioner. The Bank returned the cheque with the endorsement that payment had been stopped by the Drawer. According to the petitioner, blank signed cheques on behalf of the company were given to the complainant for drawing money to the extent of value of the cement despatched by the complainant on account of petitioner- company. Cement supply was not of a standard quality as such, the petitioner wrote to the Bank to stop payment of the cheque which may be presented against the supply of the sub-standard cement. According to the petitioner the complainant wrote on 14.5.1992, that sum of Rs. 4,29,380.00 was due but the blank cheques were misused by entering the amount Rs. 8,50,000/-and the payment of the same was also stopped because of the dispute between the parties.

(5) According to the complainant, the petitioner did not have sufficient amount in balance and for this a clerk of the Bank was examined before the Magistrate, and the offence under Section 138 of the Act was made out and petitioners had committed an offence.

(6) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the complaint does not make out a case for the offence under Section 138 of the Act, as the cheque was not dishonoured because of insufficiency of funds but payment had been stopped. On account of this, ingredients of Section 138 of the act would not be made out. According to him the morality of an Act will not make an offence but it is the ingredient of an offence which has to be proved. It has been contended that notice Annexure 1 dated 13.6.1992 and the reply Annexure-4 dated 26.6.1992 which had already been exchanged between the parties before the cheque, which is the subject matter of the offence, was presented before the Bank on 11.7.1992 and no offence is made out. The misusing of cheque and when the amount was not due to it. It is argued that the circumstances in which the cheque has been dishonoured have to be considered and that ingredient of Section 138 of the Act would not be made out when the payment has been stopped due to the dispute of payment of amount due.

(7) The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners No. 3, 4 and 5 are Directors of the Company and there is no allegation as to what was t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document