TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht for quashing of the said criminal proceeding against him. 2. Though the petitioner was originally represented by his counsel, however, due to the continuous non-appearance of the said counsel, this Court by order dated 09.11.2020 appointed an Amicus Curiae for the petitioner, as such, learned Amicus Curiae is representing the petitioner. 3. Respondent is being represented by his counsel. 4. Learned Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel for the respondent are physically present before the Court. 5. Though this matter is listed for admission, however, with the consent from both sides the matter is taken up for its final disposal. 6. I have arguments from both sides and perused the material placed before this Court. 7. The summary of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iability of repayment of the entire loan amount falls on the shoulder of his brother. This fact was brought to the notice of the Manager of the respondent-Bank vide letter of the petitioner dated 21.12.2015 as could be seen from Annexure-C. The Banker has endorsed that they have to examine in the matter. However, they proceeded to present one among the five blank cheques issued by the petitioner and instituted the present criminal case. 9. Learned Amicus Curiae also draws the attention of this Court to Annexure-E which is the copy of the alleged reply to the notice said to have been issued by the respondent after dishonour of the cheque and submits that in the very reply itself the petitioner herein has made it clear that the Banker had co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artition agreement between the accused brothers would not bind the petitioner in a criminal proceeding, cannot be discarded at this stage in this proceeding. If any such contention is there, then it is :8: CRL P. NO.101179/2017 open for the petitioner to agitate the same at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum. 12. Added to the above, the fact remains that the alleged cheque in question which is dishonoured was issued by the present petitioner and the same has been returned when presented for realisation for the reasons of insufficiency of funds. Admittedly, the present petitioner had been served with a notice after dishonour of the said cheque for which he is said to have replied as per Annexure-E. In such a situation, his d....