Dismissed

Govind Narayan Totla v. Suresh Kumar Jain

Rajasthan HC9 Aug 2017CRLLA/260/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the complainant's leave to appeal against the trial court's dismissal of a Section 138 NI Act complaint, rejecting the argument that presumption of service applies when the noticeee absented himself from the station post-notice issuance, noting the offence was compromised upon acceptance of a demand draft.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal petition dismissed; dismissal of underlying complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act is upheld.

Govind Narayan Totla Vs Suresh Kumar Jain — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 260 / 2017 Govind Narayan Totla S/o Late Shri Gyrasi Lal Totla, R/o 12/149, Maryada Kutir, Sector No. 1, Kaveri Path, Mansarover, Jaipur (raj.)

¶3

----Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

Suresh Kumar Jain S/o Late Shri Kalyan Mal Jain B/c Jain, Prop. Saravagi Textiles, Sarawagi Bhawan, House No. 953, Maniharo Ka Rasta, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur (raj.)

¶6

----Respondent

¶7

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Kabra For Respondent(s) : None present.

¶8

_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Judgment / Order

¶9

09/08/2017

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the complainant-appellant.

¶11

Leave to appeal has been sought by the complainant qua judgment dated 27.04.2017, whereby the complaint filed by the complainant against the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act has been dismissed.

¶12

Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submits that the trial Court has dismissed the complaint on the ground that compliance of the provisions of Clause (b) and (c) to the proviso of Section 138 N.I. Act has not been made.

¶13

Learned counsel has opposed the ground of rejection in view of the judgments rendered in N. Parameshwaran Unni Vs. G. Kannan and Anr., reported in AIR 2017 SC 1681: (2017) 2 Crimes 62 (SC) .

¶14

In view of this judgment, his argument is that it is enough if the demand is made by the complainant by way of issuing notice to the accused. It is not required that the notice must be served upon him, presumption of service can be drawn against the

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLLA-260/2017]

¶17

accused if the notice has been issued on his correct address.

¶18

In view of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel, I am in agreement with the legal proposition laid down therein. But the factual matrix of the case in hand appears to be different. As per the report made by postal employee, the noticee had gone out of station and, therefore, notice was not got served upon him. It is not that the noticee has refused to accept the notice. This fact has been categorically observed by learned trial Court while coming to the conclusion that the provisions of Clause (b) and (c) of proviso to Section 138 N.I. Act has not been complied with.

¶19

Further this fact is also important to be taken into consideration that the accused furnished a Demand Draft of Rs.50,000/- which was not accepted by the complainant till date of the decision. But learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submits that this D.D. has thereafter been accepted by the complainant. For this amount, the cheque issued by the accused was allegedly dishonoured.

¶20

In view of these facts and also taking this fact into consideration that offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is compoundable one and the amount of Rs.50,000/- has been accepted by the complainant, I do not find any just reason to allow this leave to appeal.

¶21

Hence, this leave to appeal petition is dismissed.

¶22

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI) J.

¶23

Arun/13

Govind Narayan Totla v. Suresh Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Narayan Totla v. Suresh Kumar Jain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shakuntala Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Gafar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Manish Kumar Bairwa and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramji Lal Bairwa Vs M D Jctsl and Anr.

Parwat Lal Mehar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Suraj Devi Vs State Medical and Healthors