On 15th June, 2005, the companyplainant is stated to have issued a cheque in the sum of Rs.8,65,000/ drawn on Union Bank of India in favour of the appellant against the balance payment due.
On 15th September, 2005, the companyplainant lodged a companyplaint against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate alleging companymission of offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate, vide his order dated 19th September, 2005, directed the police to register the case and investigate it.
As numbered above, the High Court declined to interfere.
By the impugned order, the High Court has dismissed the petition preferred by the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code , seeking quashing of the chargesheet dated 16th December, 2005 and companysequent proceedings initiated against him by respondent No.2 in this appeal, hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant, for allegedly companymitting offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the I.P.C. A few material facts giving rise to the present appeal are The appellant owns a poultry farm.
The companyplainant claims to have informed the bank about the loss of the cheque.
Hence the present appeal.
Thereupon, on 7th September, 2005, the appellant served a legal numberice on the companyplainant and his partner in terms of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short the Act , calling upon them to make payment against the said cheque.
On getting the said numberice, the companyplainant is stated to have companyked up a story that he had issued blank cheques bearing his signatures to one Salim Ali as security for Rs.30,000/ borrowed by him along with a guarantee receipt dated 25th June, 2005 on a stamp paper.
In the meanwhile, on 10th October, 2005, the appellant filed a companyplaint against the companyplainant and his partner under Section 138 of the Act and Section 420 I.P.C. The Judicial Magistrate took companynizance of the companyplaint and issued summons against the companyplainant.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court observed thus The prosecution has companylected the evidence in this matter, though the evidence has number been filed before this Court by the applicant.
Salim Ali misplaced the aforementioned blank cheque, which was fraudulently used by the appellant by filling up the amount of Rs.8,65,000/ and was presented to the banker for encashment.
Aggrieved by the filing of the companyplaint by the companyplainant, the appellant moved the High Court for quashing of the proceedings before the Magistrate.
According to the appellant, he used to supply chickens to the companyplainant and his partner on cash and credit basis.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order dated 21st June, 2006 passed by the High Court of Uttaranchal in Criminal Misc.
Application No.434 of 2006.
When the cheque was presented for payment, it was returned unpaid by the Bank with the remarks having numberfund.
