Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 18131
Decided on: 16.01.2023
For Petitioner:
Mr. Hemant Kumar Agarwal, Advocate
For Respondent:
Mr. Mohnish Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Jitendra Gupta, Advocate
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138 – Chhattisgarh Moneylenders Act, 1934 (13 of 1934), Section 11-H -- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 251, 254, 482 -- Cheque bounce complaint – Challenge to order framing charge -- Contention that demand notice was never served on the petitioner; there is no legally enforceable debt; and the petitioner is under the category of money lender, therefore, the suit is barred under Section 11-H of the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 – Held, defence taken by the petitioner/ accused may be seen during the trial -- Section 11-H of the Act, does not attract in the case -- Petition dismissed.
(Para 2-7)
Cases referred:
1. Sri Chikkahonnaiah Vs. Smt. Basamma @ Bindu, Criminal Revision Petition No.142 of 2011 dated 2.9.2020 (Karnataka HC).
2. State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335.
ORDER
DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, J. --
1. Heard.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 2.7.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.69/2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg upholding the order dated 26.3.2022 passed in Criminal Complaint Case No.1035/2019 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg (CG), for framing of the charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the demand notice was never served on the petitioner; there is no legally enforceable debt; and the petitioner is under the category of money lender, therefore, the suit is barred under Section 11-H of the Chhattisgarh Money Lenders Act, 1934 (in short “the Act”. Hence, he prays to allow the petition and quash the entire criminal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the petitioner is not a money lender, therefore, the aforesaid Section referred by learned counsel for the petitioner does not attract in this case. He further submits that the defence taken by the petitioner/accused may be seen during the trial. He submits that there is no merit in the petition, which calls for any interference. He further submits that the as the petitioner has refused to accept the registered notice, there is a deemed service of notice upon him. He places reliance on judgment dated 2.9.2020 rendered in the matter of Sri Chikkahonnaiah Vs. Smt. Basamma @ Bindu passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Revision Petition No.142 of 2011.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the petition.
6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and particularly considering the defence taken by the petitioner/accused, which may be seen during the trial and further considering the parameters for quashing the FIR as well as the settled principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335, and the allegations and averments made and the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the provisions contained under Section 11-H of the Act, does not attract in the instant case.
7. The petition being bereft of any merits, is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
********