nan_ in Ag Sgh S/ ifSgh Ch'd ’kr» o, Fakrin an raa A d but 6O ars g e ao‘ ye ol‘on aiur C-._ .Cy, Rp (G.) VRSUSC E' Dr; Harshverdhan Tiari w S/ L'Rm Gpl Twari o. atea oa i Aged about 6O year‘s i " R/oR2 Knh ga e ;—:: acan G n; Fac Ddyl Upgdhyy Ngar- ’e’en‘a-a ar’ a 'R‘alpu'r ;.’ PETITION H‘» UNDER SEGTION .482? OF CRPC. .. « 2 V‘ (CG) complainf agains'r The peTiTi under Sec‘l’ion 138 of T!‘ (henceforfh " fhe Acf") alleg favour of The responden‘r f for fhe discharge of The de payment, Bank bounced if be‘ The credh‘ of fha‘r accounf areliminary evidence, regisfered The case and direcTed issuance-of summons To The peTiTioner. ner for commi‘rfing offence punishable e Nego‘riabie Ins‘rrumen‘rs Ac‘r, 1881 ing Thm‘ ’rhe pe‘l’ifioner issued a cheque in or Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fif‘ry ’rhousand) 3T. When ThaT cheque was presenfed for :ouse of ‘l'he omoun‘r of money s’randing ’ro was insufficient To honour The cheque. Trial Cour‘T, offer recording Pe‘rifioner filed an up; )licafion under Sec‘l'ion 204 of The Cr.P.C. n The ground ThaT The amounT menTioned for quashing The complainT in The cheque had already be n received by The respondenT in The year 1999. ThaT appIicaTion was dismissed by The Trial CourT vide order daTed 05.10.2005 The rder was challenged in revision, 9Th AddiTional Sessions Judge R ipur vide order daTed 19.07.2006 passed Feeling in Criminal Revision No. 1O 2006, dismissed The revision. ‘l v [if V XI—HC—22 warm, Wm,W Wm m mm mm WW Wmmw m:W §WWII é?WW 24.08.2006 Shri Abhay Tiwari, co nsel for The peTiTioner. None for The respond nT. Heard. FacTual maTrix of The ase, in brief, is ThaT respondenT filed a .~ § XI—C-22 H V. “Wrwgm ‘