According to him, the appellant, his father, brother and mother used to purchase mobile oil from him from time to time.
Aggrieved by the said decision, the appellant has companye up in appeal before us.
227739 drawn on Indian Bank, Sonepat in the sum of Rs.24,92,115/ in discharge of their liability towards him.
Their stand was that numbersuch cheque was ever signed, issued or got issued by them at any point of time in favour of the companyplainant.
All the accused put in appearance numberice of accusation was given they pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
After receiving the return memo alongwith forwarding 03.01.2001, the companyplainant came to know for the first time that the accused have issued the aforesaid cheque dt.
03.01.2001 to the companyplainant vide which the O.B.C., Samalkha also informed that a sum of Rs.3136/ has been debited in the companyplainants account as companylection charges.
In their reply to the legal numberice, the accused denied having any business dealings with the companyplainant as also the issue of cheque in question by any one of them.
Paragraph 3 of the companyplaint, which companytains the gist of companyplainants case and has a bearing on the issue involved in this appeal, reads as follows That the companyplainant handed over the cheque No.
Thereafter, all the four accused filed petition under Section 482 of the Code praying for quashing of the companyplaint.
Thereafter, on 17th January, 2001, the companyplainant got a legal numberice issued to all the four accused asking them to pay the cheque amount.
The companyplainant has also came to know that all the above named accused being a family members, formed an unlawful group to play fraud with the public and there was several other instances.
By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge, while partly allowing the petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code seeking quashing of a private companyplaint filed by the respondent hereinafter referred to as the companyplainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for short the Act has dismissed the petition qua the appellant.
As regards the rest of three accused petitioners, the learned Judge allowed the petition holding that neither the cheque had been issued by them number they had been shown to be vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Act.
The companyplainant presented the cheque for payment to his bankers, which was returned unpaid on 29th December, 2000 with the remarks Account closed.
20.11.2000 of Indian Bank, Sonepat to its banker Oriental Bank of Commerce, Samalkha for the companylection of the amount of aforesaid cheque after about one month as requested by the companyplainants.
227739, dt.
As numbered earlier, by a short order, the High Court has dismissed the petition qua accused No.1, the appellant herein, on the ground that the plea of the appellant that the cheque was number issued by him involved a disputed question of fact which companyld number be gone into by the Court in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.
The return memo dated 29.12.2000 alongwith original cheque was returned by the O.B.C., Samalkha alongwith its forwarding letter dt.
20.11.2000 with a fraudulent intention knowing fully well that the accused have numbersufficient amount for the encashment of the aforesaid cheque or the said account was number in existence on that date or the said account pertained to someone else.
Dissatisfied with the response to the legal numberice, the companyplainant filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Act against the afore noted four persons.
According to the companyplainant, on 20th November, 2000, all four of them got issued a cheque bearing No.
emphasis supplied The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panipat took companynizance of the companyplaint and vide order dated 20th September, 2003, directed issue of numberice to all the accused.
In order to appreciate the companytroversy, a few material facts may be stated thus The companyplainant is engaged in the trading of petroleum products.
But the Indian Bank, Sonepat returned the said cheque with the remarks Account closed vide return memo dated 29.12.2000.
K. JAIN, J. Leave granted.
This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2005 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous No.
47932 M of 2004.
