BHOLASINGH JAIPRAKASH CONSTRUCTION LTD Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED advocate for the petitioners has stated at the Bar that petitioner no.3, who happened to be the chairman of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 company has expired on 22/1/2008 and xerox copy of the death certificate is produced on record. Hence this petition would not survive qua petitioner no.3, who is named as accused no.2 in the complaint. This petition is therefore now confined to the rest of the petitioners, namely petitioner company, who has been named twice, namely petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 and petitioner nos. 4 to 9.

(2.) THE petitioners who have been named as accused in criminal complaint no. 955 of 2002 filed by respondent no.2 alleging commission of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (herein after referred to as 'N.I. Act' for brevity) have approached this Court under section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashment of the said complaint for the reasons stated in the memo of the petition.

(3.) SAID petition was sought to be withdrawn with a view to approach the Court concerned for seeking discharge. The discharge application was filed which came to be rejected by concerned Court vide order dated 19/2/2005 in light of the decision in case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Jindal and Anr, that once having taken cognizance of order process cannot be recalled and discharge cannot be granted.