TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 476X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be recalled. In the present case, petitioner preferred an application for recalling the order of issuance of process passed by the learned Magistrate, which was not tenable in view of law laid down in the case of Adalat Prasad. Hence, the application preferred by the petitioner was not maintainable. The issue of maintainability of the application filed by the petitioner under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. goes to the root of the matter, in as much as, the application filed by the petitioners itself was not maintainable in law and therefore, adjudication of such application by the Courts below was not called for being not maintainable - petition dismissed. - CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 600 OF 2004 - - - Dated:- 8-8-2019 - S.S. SHI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he partners of the said firm have assured payment for the bulk oil tankers by the Respondent No.1 to the said firm, and the said firm is deemed to be a party to the complaint. It is further stated that, from time to time Respondent No. 1 has supplied to the accused i.e. the Petitioners, and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 oil tankers and, as on 30.09.2002 the account of the accused in the complaint shows debit balance of ₹ 35,26,997/ and that the accused had failed and neglected to pay the price of oil supplied to the accused along with interest at the rate of 2% per month towards compensation for loss of interest from the due date till actual realization. It is further stated that, towards the charge of legally enforceable debts and in disc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is further alleged that, the complainant agreed to give credit of the said cheques amounts to the Petitioners, and amount from their alleged dues of ₹ 35,26,997/ . On these allegations, the Respondent No. 1 has contended that, the accused in the complaint had jointly and severally committed an offence punishable under Chapter XVII and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is also stated that, accused have in this manner joined hands and cheated the complainant and committed on offence punishable under provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. On 03.04.2003 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (A.C) by an impugned order issued process against the petitioners under Section 138 of the said Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny tripartite agreement between the complainant, the Petitioners and person issuing the cheques was entered into. Learned counsel also invites attention of this Court to the grounds taken in the Petition and submits that, the Petitioners have not signed the cheques and therefore, order issuing process deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Jugesh Sehgal Vs. Shamsher Singh Gogi reported in (2009) 14 SCC 683 has taken a view that, to constitute an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 following ingredients are required to be fulfilled: (i) a person must have drawn a cheque or an account maintained b him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to ano ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns assigned by the Courts below submits that the petition may be rejected. 12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and learned APP appearing for the State at length, with their able assistance perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the Petition and annexures thereto. It appears that, the present Petitioners filed application under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad versus Rooplal Jindal and others (2004) 7 SCC 338 held that, the Court, who has issued process, has no power of review its order of issuance of process, and hence order of issuing process cannot be recalled. In the present case, petitioner preferred an application for recalling the order of issuance of process p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
