D K VERMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants seeking quashment of proceedings of Case No. 1119 of 2010 (Mohd Imraj Khan v. D.K. Verma and others), under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are the General Manager and Managing Director of M/s American Agrovet Private Ltd which is a registered company under the companies Registration Act, engaged in the business of production and sale of poultry feed. It is also contended that opposite party No. 2 was commission agent for selling of the applicant's product in districts in Uttar Pradesh and after selling the same opposite party No. 2 would get commission at the rate of 4 % on the total sale of poultry feed. It is further contended by the applicants that an agreement was executed between the parties on 5.6.2006 wherein clause 2 stipulates that in respect of sales of Poultry feeds affected by the Company opposite party No. 2 is issuing the Cheque No. 717839 drawn on Kanpur in favour of the Company to cover the outstanding dues payable to the company by him.

(2.) Case of the applicants is that the cheque was issued by the opposite party No. 2 and after computing the amount payable by him by way of security it was presented before the Bank at Patna for encashment but the cheque could not be encashed on account of the fact that the signature did not tally with that of opposite party No. 2. Consequently, a complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed against the opposite party No. 2 before the Court at Patna. Case set out by the applicants in that case is that in order to discharge their liability arising out of the agreement between the applicants and opposite party No. 2 the cheque in question was issued by the opposite party No. 2 but the same could not be encashed on account of the reason mentioned on the memo of the Bank. An amount of Rs. 11,47,280/- was sought to be recovered from the opposite party No. 2. This matter is still pending in the Court at Patna.

(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the opposite party No. 2 filed a complaint at Kanpur against the applicants as a counter blast to that criminal proceedings which is nothing but gross misuse of the process of law. Hence this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.