Sartaj Ahmed Khan vs Mohd. Ismail

Rajnesh Oswal, J

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 05.07.2017 passed by the learned District Mobile Magistrate, Doda (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’), whereby process has been issued against the petitioner for commission of offence under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act in a complaint titled, ‘Mohd. Ismail v. Sartaj Ahmed Khan’.

The ground for assailing the order impugned are that the notice has not been served upon the petitioner as the respondent has mentioned wrong address of the petitioner and that the cheque has been issued by the Company and the Company has not been arrayed as a party in the complaint.

Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the respondent has given wrong address of the petitioner and further, complaint could not have been filed against the petitioner without arraying the Company as party.

A perusal of the record reveals that the notice was sent by the respondent to the petitioner on the residential address mentioned as R/o Munad Guffan, Monad Guphan, Kulgam, Anantnag, J&K Prop. M/s S. S. Construction Govt. Contractor. More so, a perusal of the cheque in question reveals that the same bears the stamp of S. S. Constructions Govt. Contractor. It is not forthcoming from the record that S. S. Constructions is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and further, at this stage, it cannot said that mere mentioning of Anantnag along with Kulgam is a wrong address or not. On a specific query by the Court, Mr. Pawan Dev Singh, Advocate submitted that the petitioner came to know about the filing of complaint only, when the Police came to his residence.

The issues raised by the petitioner are disputed questions of facts particularly when the respondent in his complaint has alleged that the petitioner is proprietor of concern M/s S. S. Constructions.

Viewed thus, there is no merit in the present petition. As such, the same is dismissed.