Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29505 of 2018 Applicant :- Ziauddin @ Zia Khan (Proprietor M/S Home Medical Agencies) Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sunil Kumar Dwivedi,Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the order dated 26th June, 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No. 2, Rampur in Criminal Revision No. 21 of 2016 (Pee Life Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. Home Agencies & Others), whereby the aforesaid criminal revision preferred against the order dated 23rd December, 2015 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Rampur rejecting the complaint in terms of Section 203 Cr.P.C., has been allowed and the matter has been remanded before the concerned Magistrate for decision afresh.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complaint filed by the opposite party no.2 was dismissed by the concerned Magistrate in terms of Section 203 Cr.P.C vide order dated 23rd December, 2015. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, one of the finding recorded by the concerned Magistrate was that the legal notice sent by the complainant under Section 138 (b) N.I. Act was never served upon the accused. This finding recorded by the concerned Magistrate could not have been interfered with by the revisional court.
However, from the perusal of the said order dated 23rd December, 2015, it is apparent that placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vinod Tana vs. Jaheer Siddiqui; 2002 (1) J.I.C. 407 (S.C.), the concerned Magistrate came to the conclusion that since there was difference in the specimen signature and the signature on the cheque, proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act could not continue. This finding recorded by the concerned Magistrate was reversed by the revisional court vide impugned order dated 26th June, 2018 by placing reliance upon the subsequent judgments of the Apex Court, which have been taken a contrary view. Thus, the order impugned which is sought to be assailed before this Court on the ground that no notice under Section 138 N.I. Act was served upon the applicant was not taken before the concerned Magistrate nor is part of the reasoning assigned by the concerned Magistrate in his order dated 13rd December, 2015 for rejecting the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
In view of the above, no case for interference is made out.
The present application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Rajeev Misra, J.) Order Date :- 13.9.2018 Sushil/-