TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 821
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el for the applicant that the respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act against the applicant on the allegation that he had taken an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- and in lieu of same had issued the cheque in question, which stood bounced. The Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the said complaint. The applicant challenged the order taking cognizance by filing a criminal revision No.152/2015 before the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Guna,, which was allowed by order dated 07/08/2015 and the matter was remanded back to the Court of Magistrate to reconsider the question of taking cognizance after considering the documents filed by the applicant. By order dated 20/10/2015, the trial Magistrate held that in the light of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ht argument made by the counsel for the applicant as the applicant has not taken this defence before the trial Magistrate. It is further submitted that the applicant has tried to play fraud on the Court by making misleading statements. It is the case of the applicant that the bank account does not belong to him but he has deliberately suppressed the fact that who is holder of the said account. It is submitted that in fact the bank account belongs to the father of the applicant, which is evident from letter obtained by the applicant from the bank and has been placed at page No.20. It is submitted that thus, it is clear that the applicant had issued the cheque of his father under his signatures with an intention to cheat the respondent, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the case, it is clear that the bank account is of the father of the applicant. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant had an access to the cheque book, which was issued by the bank in favour of his father. The case of the respondent is that there was a transaction of Rs. 7,00,000/- between the respondent and the applicant and in lieu of that, disputed cheque was issued. For the purposes adjudicating this application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. this Court is of prima facie opinion that the applicant tried to cheat the respondent by issuing a cheque of his father. Further, every time the applicant is making a submission that neither the cheque book nor the bank account belongs to him but deliberatly he has not clarified the cheque....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch the proceeding but he cannot take any defence. Thus by allowing the revision and remanding the matter back, the Revisional Court had committed a mistake by directing the Trial Court to consider the question of issuance of summons after taking note of the defence of the applicant. Be that whatever it may. The Trial Magistrate thereafter rightly rejected the contention of the applicant on the ground that it cannot review its own order dated 06/05/2015, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad (Supra). The Revisional Court has also rightly dismissed the revision. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of In Re: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881. by order dated 16-4....