w ‘rhe insmnce. of The presanf ge‘rifiener‘ on fhz ground a? such iniarpoia‘rion. Learned counsel further submits ‘i'ha'r giieged cheques HZL'GH CIQURT QF CHHAEVTES§ADQH AT §ILA$WJR Cr>M,PNa1Q3 e? 29(33 P§Mmw Sanjay TmAIri, Aged abou‘t’ 28 years, $10 Accused 5MB iv‘ohanioi Tuwri, Through - Deepnk $196 Agency, $txkzd, Disf‘i“.burgu(c.é}.) Rasmndgn? Rams Memrs, Through - Manager Mani§h fag} 3inghania, 5fo $hri fag} Kamm Sirighania, GzERoad, Raipui"—{C.G.) under- Section 482 of fha CrPC) g (Pefition ($3; Han‘ble Math Shama, J.) é §hri Ahlymdzyi comma! far fhe parkioner. g ORDER (Passea an 3'“ $emember, meg; 1. The yeti-timer has fi!ad this petition under $ectien 482 of the. Code of (irimina! Pmcedum, 1W3 (in shor‘t ‘ifhe Code’) far quashman? 0f The. ordaw dated 3:17.200? passed by *ha Firs? Addi?§cm! iiassims Judge.’ Raipur, in Criminal Revisi’dn Na321/230E affirming 1432 ardJ dafed 59.2005 gasszd by The Additional Chief Judicial Magistmta, Raigur, in (friminaf Casg No.657/20Q5 whereby learnecLAddi?iemi Chief Judéc§a§ Magisfm’fa has mgisferzd :Vhe anmphim against? Th3 gafitinne-r‘ far- fha offence gunishablz under Sectian 1353 Qf we Negatiabk Ingrumgnts 1; Am, 1881 {in sham? ‘fhe. Act 1831‘). Againsw we. said girder, frhepresem‘ pa?§f§gmr has wed revisian and sama was d§5mis$ad hy flag. Order imgugnad. 2. Laamed cgunsel far 'the petitionar submits mat the faresznt petitioner § 1 has issuad aiiegad ‘I cine-quasi Gui 0f ? chaguas, 4 chaqaea‘ hava baan encashed by the respondgnts bu? rest cheques warg intergokvred by :rha msgondgnis and presan‘red far mmshmant Poyman? wag simppaci §$ @ were. my? issuad far dixharge 9f liabiHfy menfianed in fhg chaquag, Thereforg‘ any pmsecution on The basis of such cheques wou!d ameun? to abuse of process of the Court .3. i have heard {earned ceunsel for- fhe peti'rianer and perused the crder impugned, capy 0f +he comglainh one !e\.“rer dame 910.30%, issued by the presen‘r peti'ricner. . Copy of The cemplaim and lef‘rer- issued by we pefifioner reveal fha‘t ? chegues hae been issued by‘. fhe geti‘rioner for payment but subsequenfly the gresent petifioner has intimated the bank for stair: gaymenf 9 3 cheques on fhe gvozmd The? fhe. respenden‘r has memianed wrung amuun? in me: mid and were dishanor‘ed. sfnfeci The? he. hes issued bianh nhequws m- é'he nespnnden? hns filled fhe binnk cheques arin The sigmmre of The yreseni petitinner. 6. Lefi’er dafed 910.2(304 issued by ‘i’he heii’rioner nf‘i’er‘ direci‘ing shin pczymen’r m ‘i’he bank. knowing ali relevant feels. Tn ’lhe nbsenw 0f such nllegnhnn of issiicmce 0f cheques for yavmen‘r, +he allegm'ion against? petitiener is ns'l' grime ecie sufficient bu'f prime fncie s'l'mng for cgmmissian af the ufcresaid nffenae. I do n01 find my illemliiy in lhe circle!“ impugned. .7. Cnnsequently, ‘the .pe'tifion being devoid 0f merit is liable to be dismissed and i1: is hereby dismissed. /’://’ SAI-W T.P. SHA Judge i 4 v f beg +he F llw f’ 5. A? The ‘hma (if faking mgnizunce, vhe Cams is reguired it: Take cognizahee an "the; basis of mmer-ial cgiiemed on bahaif sf the campininani'lgimsecuficn and they are not reguired m Cansider ihe documeni‘ 9f defence. Even crther'wise if The aiieged Eefier dated 9102004 issued by +he petifiener is considered Then it clearly shows irhai’ he. has issued 3’ cheques for gin/merit. The netivigner has my?