The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the presumption of due execution of a power of attorney authenticated by a Notary Public under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. In all these five petitions, the petitioner has assailed similar order (Annexure-A) dated 08th June, 2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, City Judge, Jammu, by which the applications moved by the applicant/accused (petitioner herein) has been dismissed. The petitioner has also assailed the Complaints (Annexure-B) in all the five petitions having different numbers i.e., Complaint Nos. 45, 44, 43, 42 and 41 pending before the learned City Judge, Jammu.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of all these five petitions briefly stated are that:-

(i) The petitioner is the proprietor of M/S Rishav Enterprises, Upper Canal, Bishnah Road, Bari Brahmana, Jammu. The said firm deals in the business of sale/purchase of edible oils of different kinds and the petitioner firm also used to purchase goods from the respondent firm, which also deals in similar business.

(ii) The petitioner was having a Current Account in UCO Bank, Raghunath Bazar, Jammu and in response to the edible oil supplied by the respondent to the petitioner, the petitioner issued five cheques of the aforementioned Bank, which are:-

S. No. Cheque No. Date Amount

1. 506718 01.11.2009 Rs. 1165859/-

2. 596746 30.11.2009 Rs. 753094/-

3. 596735 22.11.2009 Rs. 725868/-

4. 596747 02.12.2009 Rs. 770960/-

5. 596754 10.12.2009 Rs. 752960/-

The aforementioned cheques were not deposited by the respondents in their Bank Account and after fifteen days from the issuance of the cheques. The payment was made by the petitioner to the respondent by RTGS and nothing remained outstanding against any of the aforesaid cheques.

(iii) The petitioner, who was in good faith within fifteen days from the issuance of the aforesaid five cheques, paid the cheque amount by RTGS and nothing was outstanding against the petitioner with respect to any of the aforesaid cheques and the petitioner asked the respondent to return the aforesaid cheques. Since all the amount had been paid, but the same were not returned by the respondent on the ground that the aforesaid cheques issued had been lost/misplaced and assured that, as soon the cheques are found, they would be returned.

(iv) The respondent with malafide intentions deliberately retained those cheques and after the passage of more than five months, presented the said cheques with his bankers on 04th May, 2010. Since, the petitioner had already paid the cheque amount to the respondent, as such there was no question of his keeping such huge amount in his account and as such, the cheques got dishonored.

(v) The said illegal act of the respondent came to the knowledge of the petitioner when the petitioner was served legal notices by the advocate of the respondent, alleging that the said cheques issued by the petitioner had been dishonored.

(vi) The petitioner approached and contacted the respondent and told him that the aforesaid cheque amount had already been paid to the respondent by RTGS, but the so called attorney of respondent did not agree and failed to give any satisfactory response and on the contrary continued threatening the petitioner that since he is in possession of the cheques and does not want to deal with the petitioner any further, as such, he wants more money and on this, the petitioner was left with no other option, but to get the legal notice replied through his advocate, in which it has been clearly mentioned that the said aforesaid cheque amount stands paid by RTGS.

(vii) Giving practical shape to his threats of extracting money from the petitioner, the respondent filed five criminal complaints against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 read with Section 420 Ranbir Penal code through its so called power of attorney holder, namely, Girdhari Lal Khariwal. The said power of attorney authorized the attorney only to appear before some tax authorities and as such, the complaint was not maintainable, but even then the cognizance was taken and the process was issued. It may also be mentioned that bot