Suraj Sharma vs Ajay Dahiya

K.K. Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner seeks quashing of a criminal complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, Ajay Dahiya, under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It has been averred, inter alia, that some amount was outstanding against this petitioner Suraj Sharma due to the respondent-complainant, Ajay Dahiya. In order to clear that outstanding amount, cheque No. QWB 782557, dated November 10, 1993, drawn at the Punjab National Bank, Pinjore, was issued for a sum of Rs. 2,500. The said cheque was payable at Panchkula. The complainant presented the cheque through its bank for collection but the said cheque was returned unpaid with a memo dated November 19, 1993, stating that there was not sufficient funds in the account of the drawer of the cheque and consequently, the cheque bounced. After serving the requisite notice on the petitioner-accused, Suraj Sharma, the said complaint was filed.

The petitioner has in his petition for quashing contended, inter alia, that as a matter of fact the amount outstanding had been paid to the respondent-complainant, vide a receipt dated November 10, 1993, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure P-1 and consequently, nothing was due. For reference'' sake the said annexure P-1 is re-produced as under :

"SHO, P. S. Pinjore

Shri Suraj Sharma has paid me the amount he had got from me by way of loan.

So nothing is due in the regard. File the complaint, also.

R. P. Dahiya (Advocate) 10-11-1993, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

Witness :

K. P. Bansal.

Raghunath Sharma.

Fly. Officer K. K. Sharma.

K. C. Baiwi.

Tej Pal."

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent-complainant who has filed a written reply and has categorically denied about the alleged payment and reiterated the fact that the cheque that was issued was returned unpaid for insufficient funds at the credit of the petitioner-accused. In the reply it has also been contended that the document annexure P-1 receipt is a fabricated and forged document. Be that as it may, it is a question of fact as to whether the outstanding amount was paid prior to the dishonouring of the cheque and if so, its effect upon the maintainability in law of the notice and the impugned complaint. The law regarding the quashing of the first information report and criminal proceedings has now been well settled by the apex court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Thirukkural Perumal [1995] SCC (Cri.) 387.

In view of this, the allegations made in the complaint are to be prima facie seen and after examining the complaint from this angle, the same is in accordance with law and does not deserve quashing. Consequently, the petition for quashing has no substance and the same is dismissed.