/rl 01 iil;7\ed\ l^\'^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETIT!QNBR Accused RESPONDBNT8 CRMP 210/2008 Mukesh Singh aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Bhisham Sin.gh, Rajput R/o Motimpur, P.S. Ss Tah. Dhamdha Dist. Dui^(C.G.). VERSUS 1. ....jiL-i. Messers Rishabh Finance Co. And Partner, Registered Finn, through P&rtner Atiil Chopra, S/o Shri Induchaad Jain Chopra, R/o Shop no. 03, Maszid Coinptex, >Juai Hafhri P.0, & Distt. Rajnandgaon [C.G.] 2. State of Chliattisgarh, thiougfa District Magistrate, P.0. & Distt. RajnandgaDa Petitioa under sectipn 482 of Code of Grimiaal Proce^ufe. 1973——For quashiag of Coniplaint:. (SB :Hoa'Me Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present- Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Shri Rajendra Tripathi, P.L. forthe State/respondent No. 2. Notice not issued to respondent No. 1. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 13/09/2009) 1. This petition uader Sectioa 482 of fhc Code of Crimidal Procedure, 1973 (in short fhe code) is for quashment of the <»der dated 10/3/2008 passed by Krst Additional Sessions Jude, Rajnaadgaon m. cmninal revision No. 9/2008 adSrmiag thc order dated 24/12/07 passed by Judicial Magisteate First Class, Rajnaadgaou in crimiaal case No. 486/2006 whcreby tearaed Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajiiandgaon has dismjssed the appUcation for quashuient of order tnlring cognizance agaiast the petitioner ffled on the grouud fhat notfce has not bcen served upon fhe petitioner and has served upon somc Mahendra Siagh. 2. Quashment is prayed on thc ground that wifhout aay service of notice required under Section 138 offhe Negotiablc iBStrument Act •".!!; l' 1 "<„ ^~JJ 'v^-wfv ^ •e-.. 'e" .^tc ,^t->.- -^p- lyic^as 3y Court below has takeu cognizauce and has rejected the applicatioa for quashment of fhe order takmg cognizance aad fhereby coiitmitted an iUegaUly, continuance of further crmunal procecding would amount to abuse offhe process ofthe Courfc 3. Leamed couasel for fhe petitionfir argued fhat in addition to aforesaid ground fhe noti.ee was for payment of Rs. 20309/- and Rs. 300f- noti.ee chai^e but cheque was~issued for Rs. 20309/- fherefore fhe amouut of cheque and anaount claiaied vide aUeged nodce is notone aad same. 4. On the other haad leamed counsel for fhe respondent No. 2/State supported the order iinpugned. 5. Leamed counsel for fhe parties are heard, 6. Copy of notice, copy of ordcr impugned, copy of application and other documcnts are perused. 7. Copy of fhe notice reveals that ainoiuit of cheque has been shown as Rs. W3091- and Rs. 300/- has been demaaded as cost ofnotice there is no dcference between aaiouat of cheque and amouat demaaded by the notice as regard fhe qucstion of semce of aotiee is conccmed the petitioner has filed fhe copy of ackaowtedgment which bears one sigaature which appeara sis Mafaendra Singh, this is a signature and wbat word actuaUy has used in signing the paper cannot be decided at (he sta^c, but petitioner may teke ttus defense at appropriate stage aad may adduce fhe evidence to show fhat notice has not been received by fhe petitioner but by one Maheudra Singh, bofh the courts below has r^htly rcjected fhe appUcation of fhe petitioner, I do not find any substance ia thc petition. Consequenfly, fhis petition is Uable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismdssed. 8. I.A. No. 01/2008 is also dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge .„_!.