CHATTER SAIN Vs. RAGHAV BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petitions are filed under Section 482 CrPC assailing the order of ASJ whereby the revision petition filed against the order of M.M. dated 27.4.2011 framing notice under Section 251 CrPC was dismissed. THE relief is sought for quashing of the proceedings pending before the M.M. under Section 138, N.I.Act as also the order of M.M. under Section 82 CrPC declaring the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender.

(2.) AT the outset, it may be noted that the copy of the impugned order of ASJ whereby the criminal revision petition was dismissed is not placed on record and no reason has been given for so. The petitions as such are apparently not maintainable on this short ground. However, from the averments made in the petitions, it appears that the said revision petition against the order of MM framing notice under Section 251 CrPC in respect of offence under Section 138/142 N.I.Act was dismissed being not maintainable. The order of the M.M. framing notice under Section 251 CrPC has been assailed on various grounds. Firstly, it is averred that the complainant failed to prove that he is the proprietor of the firm M/s. Resoursys. In this regard, the submission was that the complaint was filed by complainant Raghav Bansal, who was neither the payee nor holder in due course of the cheque in question. It was submitted that the payee was M/s. Resoursys and not the complainant and so, the complaints filed by the Raghav Bansal were not maintainable. This plea of the counsel for the petitioner is entirely misconceived and baseless. The complaints were filed by Raghav Bansal as proprietor of M/s. Resoursys. He being the proprietor of the firm in whose favour the cheque in question was issued, was the only competent person to file the complaint being its proprietor.

(3.) IN view of the above, the plea that was taken with regard to the security was entirely false and concocted.