57 of 2003 arising out of the First Information Report filed by the appellant before the Station House Officer, Digras had been closed.
Respondent No.
It arises out of a judgment and order dated 18.09.2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal M.C. No.
3.8.2001 was sent to the accused requesting the accused to make payment of the above said cheque amount and on 17.8.2001 the accused sent reply through his Advocate denying his liability falsely taking the plea that the cheque in question was lost as stolen by the companyplainant That the accused has taken the above said false pleas knowing it fully well that he does number intend to make payment of the said cheque amount, and the companyplainant is thus companypelled to file this companyplaint.
They were presented before the bank but the same were returned dishonoured with the remarks said cheque reported lost by the drawer.
2 and his brother, wherein also a closer report has been submitted.
Admittedly, the appellant had lodged a First Information Report under Sections 369, 495, 498, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code with the Police Station Digras against the respondent No.
Appellant has filed another criminal companyplaint against the respondent No.
Information as regards missing of the said cheques was also given to the bank.
It is number in dispute that the Superintendent of Police, Digras has issued a certificate showing that FIR No.
2 thereafter upon issuance of numberices in terms of the proviso appended to Section 138 of the Act filed a companyplaint petition in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, inter alia, alleging That the above said cheque in question was presented by the companyplainant for encashment through its bearers, namely State Bank of India, Azadpur Branch, Delhi 33, but the same was returned as dishonoured with the remarks SAID CHEQUE REPORTED LOST BY THE DRAWER.
2890 of 2007.
50 bearing only my signatures had been stolen, therefore, to prevent any misuse of my cheques, I sent a written information to State Bank, Branch Digras and subsequently on 21 04 01 I filed a companyplaint in Police Station Digras The blank cheques were allegedly filled up on 24.06.2001.
He lodged a First Information Report with regard thereto, stating On my return to Digras, I found that the cheques and the stamp worth Rs.
By reason of the impugned judgment, the said application has been dismissed.
This intimation was received by the companyplainant from the bankers on 27.7.2001 and accordingly a numberice dt.
Appellant kept two blank cheques in his office along with some stamp papers.
Whether return of a cheque by the bank on the ground that it was reported lost by the drawer would attract the penal provisions companytained in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short the Act is the question involved in this appeal.
They were said to have been stolen from his office.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
The said question arises in the following factual matrix.
