(1.) Heard Sri Sushil Kr. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Uday Bhan, learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dtd. 10/9/2024 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Judge, N.I. Act, Agra in application dtd. 2/7/2024, under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 2186 of 2017 (Maya Rani vs. Ram Autar), under Sec. 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Jagdishpura, District Agra. Further prayer is to summon the opposite party No.3/company for facing trial.
(3.) Facts giving rise to the present case are that a cheque dtd. 16/12/2016 for the amount of Rs.26,37,100.00 was issued on behalf of the company M/s Anupam Omarion Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. by opposite party No.2 being its director as well as authorized signatory. That cheque was presented before the bank on 16/12/2016, but the same was returned on 8/3/2017 with the endorsement "fund insufficient", thereafter the applicant sent a notice to opposite party No.2 as well as the company (opposite party No.3) on 31/3/2017. However, despite expiry of 15 days from the date of receiving the notice, the cheque amount was neither paid by opposite party No.2 nor by opposite party No.3. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on 24/4/2017, impleading opposite party No.2 as proprietor of opposite party No.3. It is undisputed that respondent No.3 (company) was not arraigned as accused in the complaint. After perusal of the record, learned Magistrate took cognizance on 22/6/2017 and summon was issued to opposite party No.2. After conclusion of evidence of the applicant and an application under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the applicant on 2/7/2024 to summon opposite party No.3 on the ground that by mistake the opposite party No.3 could not be impleaded at the time of filing the complaint though the cheque in question was issued on behalf of the company. However, that application was rejected by the court below by impugned order dtd. 10/9/2024 which has been challenged in the present application.