2021 (11) TMI 825

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The petitioner claims to be the proprietor of M/s. New Jhelum Construction Company and is engaged in the construction activities. The petitioner states that the respondent is related to the petitioner and decided to engage him for the supervision of one contract awarded to the petitioner under PMGSY for construction of a road at Kathua. The precise case of the petitioner is that a cheque bearing No. 093015 dated 12.04.2013 for an amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- drawn on Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd., Town Hall Jammu, from Account No. 1279 maintained in the name of the firm of the petitioner was issued to the respondent. The further case of the petitioner is that later on the request of the respondent two cheques of Rs. 3,70,000 each were issued to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e amount of Rs. 7,40,000/- and nothing more. Further reiterating the averments contained in the petition through argument it is submitted that it cannot be mere coincidence that the two cheques issued by the petitioner will be of the same amount regarding which the earlier cheque issued to discharge the liabilities incurred on behalf of the petitioner in the contract allotted to the petitioner company. It is also argued that the petitioner has also filed an FIR No. 497/2013 registered with Police Station Domana with regard to theft committed by the respondent of the cheque amounting to Rs. 7,40,000/-. The complaint filed by the respondent is abuse of process of law and is required to be quashed on that score. 4. Mr. V. Bhushan Gupta, lea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 6. In the case in hand, the precise submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the cheque amounting Rs. 7,40,000/- subject matter of the complaint was though issued to the respondent initially yet on the asking of the respondent in lieu of the said cheque two more cheques of Rs. 3,70,000/- each were issued to the respondent and further the cheque Rs. 7,40,000 though returned by the respondent to the petitioner was again stolen by him after the amounts of two cheques were withdrawn by the respondent. The Court is of the considered view that the transaction as presented by the petitioner in the present has infact happened or meant to take place in that manner cannot be determined or commented upon by this Court in the present pro....