Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 140 (RAJ)

Jahuruddin v. Mustkim Qureshi

2023-01-11

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

body2023
ORDER 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 09.09.2022 passed by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for summoning the Bank Manager has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner on 15.02.2013 and the validity of the cheque was three months but the said cheque was presented by the complainant with the Bank on 16.05.2013 that is after expiry of the validity period. Counsel submits that the above invalid cheque was dishonored by the Bank with the remark that Funds Insufficient'. Counsel submits that the evidence of the Bank Manager is essential for disposal of the complaint filed by the complainant against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act but the trial Court has erred in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.P.C. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the cheque in question bears the date i.e. 15.02.2013 and the same was presented before the Bank on 16.05.2013 and the said cheque was bounced by the Bank with the remark that 'Funds Insufficient' thereafter, the complainant issued a notice to the accused for payment of the amount mentioned in the cheque and when the amount was not paid to the complainant then the instant complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act has been filed against the petitioner. Perusal of the impugned order further indicates that after getting the sufficient opportunity to cross examine with the witness, the evidence was closed on 09.04.2019 and thereafter, the case was posted for final arguments. At this stage, the petitioner has submitted the application for summoning the Bank Manager for the purpose of proving the fact that whether the cheque in question was valid or not as per Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act. It is question of law which is required to be adjudicated by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the complaint. It is question of law which is required to be adjudicated by the trial Court at the time of final disposal of the complaint. For proving this fact, summoning of the Bank Manager is not at all required, it appears that the said application has been submitted by the petitioner at the belated stage of final argument of this matter to delay the disposal of the complaint. 5. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I find no error in the impugned order passed by the Court below, hence this petition being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. Stay application also stands dismissed.