JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

- constitution of india 1055. article 141; [a.k. patnaik, c.j., dipak misra, abhay gohil, s. samvatsar, & s.k. gangele, jj] dismissal of slp arising from decision of high court whether binding precedent decision of division bench in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh, [2007(ii) mpjr 229] overruled by full bench of same high court prior to delivery of decision of full bench order passed in division bench decision assailed in slp before supreme court dismissal of slp by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but high court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by apex court and larger bench decision in jabalpur bus operators association, reported in [2003(1) mpjr 158]. court clarifies that dr......

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

orders.l. jain, j.1. invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in criminal case no. 236/2002, pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, sagar.2. facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--3. respondent m.p. financial corporation filed a complaint under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act (for short 'the act') read with section 4 of banking public financial institutions and negotiable instrument laws. (amendment) act, 1988 (66 of 1988) companies act (for short 'the companies act') and section 420 read with section 109 of the ipc alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of rs. 17 lacs to m/s om cleaning &.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

S.L. Jain, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510580',
			'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
			'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
			'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
			'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">S.L. Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510580',
		(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Jain Traders Vs M P Financial Corporation - Citation 510580 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510580',
		'acts' => 'Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109 and 420; Companies Act - Sections 4',
		'appealno' => 'Misc. Criminal Case No. 852/2004',
		'appellant' => 'JaIn Traders',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'JaIn Traders Vs. M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'casenote' => ' - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2004-12-17',
		'deposition' => 'Petition allowed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'S.L. Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.</p><p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.</p><p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--</p><p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.</p><p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.</p><p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.</p><p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.</p><p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.</p><p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.</p><p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.</p><p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.</p><p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.</p><p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2005(2)MPHT341',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'M.P. Financial Corporation',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510580',
	(int) 1 => 'jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510580/jain-traders-vs-m-p-financial-corporation'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>S.L. Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings, in Criminal Case No. 236/2002, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. Facts leading to the registration of the case pithily recited are thus:--',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Respondent M.P. Financial Corporation filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act') read with Section 4 of Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instrument Laws. (Amendment) Act, 1988 (66 of 1988) Companies Act (for short 'the Companies Act') and Section 420 read with Section 109 of the IPC alleging that the complainant advanced a sum of Rs. 17 lacs to M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. One Sunil Kumar Jain is the Director of M/s Om Cleaning & Processors Pvt. Ltd. He issued numerous post dated cheques of different dates. These cheques were signed by partner of Jain Traders, Aruna Jain. One cheque No. 185807, dated 25-11-2000 of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Mauranipur was submitted by the respondent to Union Bank of India, Sagar Branch on 25-11-2000 for clearance.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. The cheque was dishonoured by the State Bank of India due to insufficient fund in the account of the drawer.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>6. On receiving the information from the bank regarding return of the cheque as unpaid, the payee made a demand for payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to M/s Om Cleaning. As M/s Om Cleaning failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee, Corporation M.P. Finance Corporation filed a complaint under the aforesaid Sections. CJM, Sagar vide order dated 3-4-2001 registered the complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act only against both the accused persons namely M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. and the present petitioner. Complaint was not registered under Section 4 of the Companies Act or under Sections 420 and 109 of the IPC.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>7. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing the proceedings before CJM, Sagar on the ground that one of the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act is that the payee of the cheque should make a demand for the payment of the amount of the cheque by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid and, if the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice, but does not exist in the present case. No notice was given to the petitioner, therefore, in the absence of such notice, the Court can not take cognizance of the offence. The petitioner has filed the copy of a complaint.',
	(int) 8 => '<p>8. A perusal of copy of demand notice address to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors Pvt. Ltd. reveal that notice was issued to M/s Om Cleaning and Processors only. No such notice was served to the present petitioner.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>9. The case was adjourned number of times on the request of the Counsel for the respondent. Counsel for the respondent could not show any notice which was given to the petitioner under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act. As the giving of notice is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 138 of the Act, in the absence of notice, no case can be said to be made out.',
	(int) 10 => '<p>10. Section 482 of the Cr.PC empowers this Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate it is open to the Court to quash the same in exercise of the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>11. Where the notice was issued only to M/s Om Cleaning and not to the present petitioner and there was no proper material to proceed against one of the accused persons, the continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner would amount to abuse the process of the Court and the same has to be quashed and accordingly. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings in Criminal Case No. 236/2002 against the present petitioner are hereby quashed.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>12. The proceedings are being quashed against the petitioner on the assumption that notice under Section 138 of the Act has not been served upon them. In case the respondent satisfies the Trial Court that notice was issued to present petitioner also in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act, the Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner also.<p>',
	(int) 13 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 14
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109