HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2933/2018

1.

Pandit Builders F.D.-14, Chandan Van Phase 1 Mathura,

Up, Through Proprietor Pandit Builders F.D.-14, Chandan

Van Phase 1 Mathura (UP)

2.

Tapan Kumar Pandit S/o Kamal Krishan B/c Brahmin,

Proprietor Pandit Builders F.D.-14, Chandan Van Phase 1

Mathura (UP)

----Petitioners

Versus

Agrawal Traders, 11, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur, Through

Proprietor Jitendra Kumar Agrawal S/o Kailash Chand Agrawal By

caste Vaishya, R/o B-152, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur, PS Kotwali,

Bharatpur, Raj.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Yogesh Singhal

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr.Prakash Thakuria,Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Order

04/12/2018

Present petition has been filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the

Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharatpur, whereby cognizanc of

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was

taken against the petitioner. It is further prayed that order dated

26.04.2018 passed by the Revisional Court below, whereby order

dated 30.01.2017 was affirmed be also set aside.

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners

had issued five cheques, total amounting to ` 4.60 lacs. Counsel

for the petitioners contends that a compromise was arrived on

(2 of 2)

[CRLMP-2933/2018]

18.12.2015 and in terms of the compromise the petitioners had to

pay ` 50,000/- per month. Counsel contends that petitioners paid

only one installment of ` 50,000/- and thereafter there is no

receipt available with the petitioners regarding payment of the

remaining amount. Counsel for the petitioners stated that cheque

of ` 5 lacs issued as a security at the time of compromise had

been presented by the complainant. Counsel for the petitioners

has contended that cheque of ` 5 lacs issued by the petitioners as

a security at the time of compromise cannot be presented by the

complainant and if same is presented and same has bounced, no

complaint will lie for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act.

The petitioners cannot have a cake and eat it too. The

petitioners took the complainant for a ride on the pretext of

compromise. Having paid only one installment the petitioners

defeated the rights of the complainant by deceiving him to

withdraw the complaint. The complainant is well justified to

present the cheque which was part of the agreement. In case the

petitioners have failed to pay the amount, as agreed, the

complainant shall be entitled to present the cheque for

encashment.

No interference is called for and the present petition

being devoid of merit is dismissed.

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

KKC/26