' SSnate Bench IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH''''- - ~- ~ AT BILASPUR Cr.M.P. N0. ^Ak /2011 fS.B.) PETITIONER {Revision petitioner/ accused _of the court below) Iltl. P.R.te-......^^"^ Presented iiy Shrk-^-^;;f;' ^^.".^^- RESPONDENTS fcomDlainant of the casel Mohd. Waijd Akhtar, S/o Mohd. Bashir Akhtar, aged about 34 years, Sanjari Garment Near Horilal Provision Store,Main Road, Bu-gaon, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Mirchumal S/o Safarmal, aged about 65 years, R/o Malviya Road, Police Station Gole Bazar, Tahsil and Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through - District Magistrate, Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) APPUCATION UNDER SECTION 482 OFCR.P.C. ^ XI-HC—78 Hl+Kll sb*ilsh 3~5T •<fl<l|(;l<l, yTllyis, fsidiy^ Grt'v^,,t^0 .'-iH/'I•^200 s^swW WT an^i ititii* 3^1 ''W? ('^3^t) wiiw^itowi^i SB : Hon'ble Shri Manindra Mot] 18-08-2011 Shri C.R.Sahu, counsel for| Shri Rakesh Jha, Deputy No.2 on advance copy. This petition has been fitel dated 8/7/2011 passed in criminj Magistrate, taking cognizance an(i registering orfence against the petitioner under Section 138 ofthe Negotiable Insfruments Act has been affirmed. Learned counsel for the tl complairiant does not make out] Even then the tearned Maaistrate ! submits that in the preliminary s1 discharge of the debt alieged to b me secuntv aaainst re-oavment. that the compiainant has given given to him, w'nich prima racie iliegat as this creates serious doj not. Learned counsel for the ri <bl<ll?l<il-l WRii <f ft^t •(!%R?R: ^sffimsn^i an Shrivastava, J. itne Detitjoner. Governmenf Advocate for the State/respondent a by the petitioner assailing the vaiidity of order M revision No.149/11 by which the order of the letitioner argues that the complaint filed bv the a prima facie case for registration of offence. has registered ofrence against the petitioner. He ^tements recorded, the complainant has stated mat ne nad issuea a promissory rtote aiso to me petmoner, in aaaition to receiving a cheque. He submits that this shows that the check which was given, was not in ^ taken by the petitioner but 't was oniy given for Learned counsel for the Detitioner further submits aifferent address of the petitioner in the notice isnows tnat ine prosecution or tne pemioner is jbt as to whether notice was actuatlv served or »etitioner a!so su&mits tnat in me preii.minar/ statements also he has stated tilat no notice was given to Sofiya industries but notice has been sent oniy to its pr^prietor- Wajid Akhtar. A readina of the comDiaint fiied bv the respondent shows that the compiainant has stated in its comblaint that loan was taken by the petitioner and a cheque was given which was disr|onoured on which demand notice was given and XI-HC—78 WHCtTWW^ s^f ^ww^, •,sx\\ww, [s{<fwy, <^0 . ^l^//f an^ '^^P ('^3^tT) ail^I ^T R-fi'* ^PV 3TR?f ^fl ^nwafsffsn^i ^ when the amount was not paidj statements also, the compiainanl ihat a cheque was given to him t|y the complainant which was dishonored.when it was presented in the bank. in th4 complaint, it has aiso been stated that the notice was given to the co-accused - statements recoraea do not pnm| a promissory note was issuea ifl matter of enquiryand pemaps security and not to be honoured. compiaint and preiiminary statem case of the compiainant itself thai De nonoured. in me comDiaint ag stated that the notice was given f provisions contained in Section out. The ailegations on the fad reievant time, was the propnetor therefore, it cannot be said that trl rejected at this stage as it is ^ pieaded in the compiaint and a| notice was sent to the petitioner. matter of evidence. <^i^[^^n 'W:Rtf ^f fsT^t <nii<-$n ^ StfOT 311^1 a compiaint is being fiied. tn the preliminary r has stated regarding advancement of ioan and Wajid Akhtar. The complaint or the preiiminary a facie show that the comDlainant has stated that respect or the same transaction. it would be a a detence aiso that me cneque was given tor However, in view of the aiiegations made in the ents, at this stage, it cannot be said that it is the a cneque was given oniy as a security ana not to wei! as in the preiiminary statements, it has been o the co-accused - Wajid Akhtar. Looking to the i4i OT me NegotiaDie instruments Act, at mis stage, it cannot be said that no dase for proceeding against the petitioner is made e of the compiaint are that the petitioner at the of the firm. The last issue which has been raised is that there is difference of trte address in the complaint and in the notice. e notice was given to the petitioner, is liable to be matter of evidence. it has been emDhaticaiiv so stated in the preiiminary statements that the VVhether it was aciuaily served on him or not, is a "-'7" C7. IMCTl %1<Ri» ^Sf •<11<<Kn'4, y^ly'lri, fsRTTCP^ ..C.'^c.to^..,.t^.»,.//?^/ // 3tI^T Tra^ ('^qigaf^EF) awtfl^iifehi? Wl <fti^<( a>frii^ Deepti TOnWTEifeiaiT^i 3- In the resuit, 1 do not find invoivea in issuance OT process Dy Detition has to be dismissed and is a| it is made ctear that whateveil in orderto:find out.as to whether a| made out' arid'this'Court has not iearried TriaF Cdtirtshali tiold trial in| by any ofthe observatiqns made by 'Ti'iti'iqli xmvS iifest <fi|^]< *•-afRn.sii^i tny iiiegaiity or aouse OT me process ot law r^gistering onence against me pemioner. i nis ipcoroingiy aismissea. obser/ations are made by this Court are only Iprima facie case ror registration or offenceis bommented on the merits of the case. The laccordance with iaw, without being influenced tnis uoun. ———-'~ tflan ld'n Shri^astava , (Aohan ,ndra l"^ge tlltl'flfl ilAl »jsi"ll<SI,(RHWfra—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,009.