Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 783 (PNJ)

Satnam Enterprises v. Amar Industries

2002-08-09

HEMANT GUPTA

body2002
Judgment 1. The petitioner has sought quashing of the complaint dated 23.11.90 under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and summoning order dated 1.12.90 and the order dated 6.1.1994 whereby the application of the respondents for the substitution of the complainant have been allowed. 2. The complainant has lodged a complaint under section 138 of the act alleging that cheques bearing Nos 331137 dated 20.9.1990 and 3331139 dated 1.10.1990 when presented to his bankers were dishonoured with the remarks refer to drawer. After the dishonour of the cheques the complainant has served legal notice dated 23.10.1990 and when payment was not made within the prescribed period, the complaint was lodged. 3. The present complaint is sought to be quashed for the reason that the complaint was filed through Manager who has given in writing that he ceased to be Manager and therefore not interested in continuing with the prosecution. However, another application was moved by to pursue the complaint on behalf of the complainant. On the said application, the trial Court has permitted the partner to prosecute the complaint and consequently the order dated 6.1.1994 is challenged in the present petition alongwith the order dated 6.1.1994 is challenged in the present petition alongwith complaint itself. Petitioner has also sought quashing of the complaint on the ground that the first cheque has been presented again only to evade the point of limitation and that a joint notice has been served in respect of both the cheques which is not permissible. 4. No ground for interference in exercise of power under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been made out. The complainant is Amar Industries which was earlier represented by its Manager. The same is now represented by its partner. There is no illegality in prosecuting a complaint through an authorised representative or a partner. The complainant remains the same i. e. Amar Industries. Whether amar Industries is prosecuting its complaint through its partner as well as through its Manager is wholly immaterial. The cheque has been issued in favour of the Amar Industries and the grievance is that of Amar industries. 5. The second ground for seeking the quashing is that the cheque have been presented only to evade the point of limitation. It is misconceived. The cheque has been issued in favour of the Amar Industries and the grievance is that of Amar industries. 5. The second ground for seeking the quashing is that the cheque have been presented only to evade the point of limitation. It is misconceived. It is well settled that the presentation of cheque again within the period of its validity does not vitiate the proceedings under Sec.138 of the act. Each presentation of cheque gives rise to separate cause of action which can found basis of complaint under Sec.138 of the Act. 6. The other ground that one notice has been served for two cheque again is not sustainable. There is no requirement of any statute that there should be a separate notice in respect of each of the cheques. The purpose of the notice is to bring to the notice of the drawer the factum of dishonour of cheques and to grant him opportunity to make payment of the cheque. Such purpose was duly achieved by serving a notice in respect of both the cheques. 7. Keeping in view the said facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere in the summoning order dated 1.12.1990 and the order dated 6.1.1994 passed by the Sub Judge Judicial Magistrate 1st class. Ludhiana, in exercise of jurisdiction under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.