Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 574 (JK)

Kuldeep Singh v. Vimal Khajuria

2010-11-15

Mansoor Ahmad Mir

body2010
1. A complaint came to be filed against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu was transferred to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (City Judge) Jammu. After examining the contents of the complaint and preliminary statements of the complainant, trial Court has drawn the cognizance and issued the process against the accused-petitioner herein for commission of the offences punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, vide order dated 24th August, 2004. Feeling aggrieved petitioner questioned the same before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. The revision petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 2nd January, 2006. The petitioner has questioned both the orders by the medium of this writ petition and also prayed that entire proceedings be quashed. 2. It is beaten law of land, that power in terms of Section 561-A Cr.P.C is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and cautiously. The power can be exercised only when it appears that the process issued amounts to abuse of the process of Court/law or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. 3. I have gone the complaint, copy whereof has been furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the open Court. It appears that accused-petitioner herein had issued cheques to the complainant-respondent which bounced in terms of memo dated 6.3.2004 and 8.3.2004, in the memo "Exceeds arrangements" is recorded. Respondent- complainant issued two notices to the petitioner dated 15.03-2004 and 16.03.2004 . The accused-petitioner after receiving the notices asked the complainant not to file any complaint and assured him to make the payment and issued a cheque dated 18.07.2004, payable at J&K Bank Ltd. Branch Patelnagar Akhnoor Road, Jammu for an amount of Rs. 71,000, came to be presented for payment, again it was bounced and returned to the complainant with the Memo `exceeds arrangements’ .The complainant thereafter served a demand notice as averred in Pars 7 and 8 of the complaint. 4. I have gone through the orders passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class ( City Judge) Jammu and am of the considered view that the trial Court while keeping in view the mandate of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act read with Criminal Procedure Code has rightly drawn the cognizance and issued the process. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu has rightly dismissed the revision petition. 5. Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu has rightly dismissed the revision petition. 5. In the given circumstances, the orders passed by the trial Court as well as 2nd Additional Sessions Judge are not in any way abuse of the process of law. Viewed thus, this petition is dismissed in limine. Registry to send copy of the order to both the Courts.