Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2910 of 2008 (Against the Order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Complaint Case No. C-999 of 2007 as well as Order dated 13.12.2007 in Cr. Revision No. 482 of 2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Motihari) =========================================================== Sanjay Agrawal, S/o late Suresh Chandra Agrawal, R/o Motihari Sugar Factory, Engineering Quarter, P.O. Motihar, P.S. Motihari, District – East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Surendra Singh, S/o late Nagina Singh, R/o Vill. Bhagwatiya, P.S. Kessariya, District – East Champaran at present Shanti Fuel Service at Kotwa, P.S. Kotwa, District – East Champaran .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date: 09-11-2012 Mandhata Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. Finding a prima facie case under [STATUTE] , process has been issued by the Magistrate which is confirmed by the Revisional Court. Allegation is that for the dues of Shanti Fuel Services Petroleum, six cheques were issued but dishonoured when were submitted for their encashment showing fund insufficient. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that complaint is not maintainable, as not filed by payee of the cheques or holders in due course of the cheques. Sections 142 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides for Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2910 of 2008 dt.09-11-2012 2 taking no cognizance if complaint for dishonour of the cheques is not filed by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheques. 4. Another allegation is for the offence under [STATUTE] . on which submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in course of business transaction, some dues remained with accused persons for which cheques were issued, so there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention from the beginning which is necessary ingredient for constituting the offence under [STATUTE] . Allegation made in the complaint petition lacks fraudulent or dishonest intention, rather same was to the effect that earlier payment was made regularly. Hence, no offence is made out under this Section also. 5. Under the observations made above, this quashing application is allowed. The order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in Complaint Case No. C-999 of 2007 (Enquiry No. 420 of 2007) as well as the order dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Motihari in Cr. Revision No. 482 of 2007 is hereby quashed. N.A.F.R. Shail/- (Mandhata Singh, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 138

Statute Text:
Section 138 of the Indian Penal Code. Abetment of act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, if the offence be committed in consequence. Whoever abets what he knows to be an act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or air Force, of the Government of India, shall, if such act of insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.