Judgment:
Crl.
Misc.
not M-11465 of 2011 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.
Misc.
not M-11465 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision:
25. 1.2013.
Gulshan Lakhina and another ........Petitioners versus M/s Veer Vardhman Textiles ......Respondents Mills LTD.and another CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Suryakant Gautam, Advocate for the petitioneRs.None for the respondents....SABINA, J.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition qua petitioner No.2.
Accordingly, this petition is dismissed qua petitioner No.2.
Petitioner No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint No.385 of 2009/496 of 2011 (Annexure P-1) titled as M/s Veer Vardhman Textiles LTD.Versus M/s Sangeeta Yarns and others under Section 138, 141, 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('Act' for short).summoning order dated 18.11.2009 and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
In the present case, respondent No.1 filed the complaint in question against the petitioner and others with Crl.
Misc.
not M-11465 of 2011 (O&M) -2 - regard to dishonour of cheque in question.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that when the cheque in question was presented for encashment, the same was returned back by the bank with the remarks “Exceeds Arrangement”.After recording of preliminary evidence led by the complainant, all the accused were ordered to be summoned vide the impugned summoning order to face the trial qua commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that M/s Sangeeta Yarns was a sole proprietorship concern.
Raj Kumari was the proprietor of the firm.
Petitioner had no concern with the said firm.
Petitioner had not signed the cheque in question.
The cheque in question was signed by Charanjit Lakhina.
Hence, the complaint qua the petitioner was liable to be quashed.
None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 despite service.
In the case of State of Haryana versus Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:- “The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and Crl.
Misc.
not M-11465 of 2011 (O&M) -3 - inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:- (1) Where the allegations made in the fiRs.information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the fiRs.information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or Crl.
Misc.
not M-11465 of 2011 (O&M) -4 - complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.”
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
Annexure P-3 is the certificate issued by the Punjab Crl.
Misc.
not M-11465 of 2011 (O&M) -5 - and Sind Bank which reads as under:- “This is certified that we are having cash credit No.431 WCT/ in the name of M/s Sangeeta Yarn Dev Puri Road, Panipat.
Smt.
Raj Kumari w/o Sh.
Charanjit Lakhina is proprietor of the above firm.
Sh.
Charanjit Lakhina s/o Sh.
Ram Ditta Mal is authorized signatory in the above firm.”
The cheque in question has been signed by Charanjit Lakhina.
Thus, the petitioner No.1 has neither signed the cheque not is the proprietor of the firm in question.
As per Annexure P-3 Raj Kumari is the proprietor of M/s Sangeeta Yarns.
The cheque in question has been issued by Sangeeta Yarns and is signed by its authorized signatory.
In these circumstances, petitioner No.1 who has neither signed the cheque in question not is the proprietor of the firm, cannot be held liable for criminal prosecution with regard to dishonour of cheque in question.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Complaint No.385 of 2009/486 of 2011 (Annexure P-1) titled as M/s Veer Vardhman Textiles LTD.Versus M/s Sangeeta Yarns and others under Section 138, 141, 142 of the act including the summoning order dated 18.11.2009 and all the consequential proceedings, arising therefrom, qua petitioner No.1, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE January 25, 2013 Gurpreet