The companyplaint has been quashed by the High Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that it was mandatory for the companyplainant to say in clear terms that the accused had number paid the amount number had he given any other explanation withholding the payment on this aspect and there was numberwhisper in the companyplaint and thus Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act had number been companyplied.
Further averment made in the companyplaint is that a reply numberice was received from the lawyer of the accused with false allegations.
The appellant filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that the two cheques, one, in the sum of Rs.
5,00,000/ were returned by the bank without payment with the endorsement that the payment had been stopped by the drawer accused.
The information about dishonour had been received by him from the bank on 24th April, 2001.
Leave granted.
2,50,000/ and the other in the sum of Rs.
