LAWS(GJH)-2021-9-324

PRATAP KUNDA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

Decided On September 27, 2021
Pratap Kunda Appellant
V/S
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is moved under Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing and setting aside the Criminal Case No.4448 of 2019 registered with the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Court No.30, Ahmedabad for the offences punishable under Sec. 138 and Sec. 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act for short).

(2.) It is stated by the petitioners that the case has been instituted against them on 16/01/2019 which was registered through General Power of Attorney Mr.Shubhrendu Saxena. It is contended that various allegations are made with regard to the original complainants having entered into certain transactions with a company registered under the name of M/s Prisha Properties (India) Private Limited which has been arraigned as accused no.1. It is stated by the complainants that they have entered into certain transactions with the company with regard to the purchase of a property and as the transaction did not go further, the complainants opted for the exit option and were thereafter issued the cheques impugned in the present complaint.

(3.) Mr. Narendra Jain, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that admittedly, these three cheques have not been signed by the petitioners. The complaint in its entire body does not refer to the fact that the signatory of the complaint i.e. Mr.Shubherndu Saxena has personal knowledge of the facts of the case. Said cheques came to be dishonoured on 28/11/2018 and after issuance of notice, impugned complaint has been registered. Mr. Jain, learned advocate submitted that Learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind to the complaint and instead chose to issue process against the petitioners. Mr. Jain, learned advocate argued that the complainant themselves in the complaint have referred to the present petitioners as being formal partners of a partnership firm and there is no averment as to how the petitioners no.1 and 2 are related to the accused no.1 company.