SHIVRAJ WIRES LIMITED Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Order shall dispose of Crl. Misc. No.M-19483 of 2008 and Crl. Misc. No.M-19526 of 2008 as the facts, law point and parties in both the cases are common.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No.M-19483 of 2008. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the accused with the allegations that in order to discharge legal liability, accused issued cheques bearing Nos.850602 dated 06.06.2004 amounting to Rs. 1,77,840, Cheque no.850604 dated 06.06.2004 amounting to Rs. 1,98,254/- and Cheque no.850603 dated 06.06.2004 amounting to Rs 1,87,178/- all drawn on UCO Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, in favour of the complainant. The complainant presented the said cheques in the bank for collection but the same was dishonoured vide memos dated 09.06.2004, 25.06.2004 and 25.06.2004 with remarks "Draw ing Power not arranged" and "D.P. is not available." Thereafter, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 06.07.2004 calling upon the accused to make the payment within 15 days but in spite of receipt of notice, the accused has failed to make the payment within stipulated period. Thereafter, the complaint was filed. After filing of the complaint, an application P-2 dated 05.02.2007 was filed for bringing out certain amendments in the complaint. The said application was allowed vide Order dated 13.04.2007. After that the evidence was led by the complainant- respondent. On the basis of the same, the accused were ordered to be summoned vide Order dated 19.02.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.

(3.) THIRDLY , the alleged debt is not legally enforceable and the same is clearly time barred since the alleged date of transaction is of February to April, 1998 and the cheques are alleged to be of June, 2004 and lastly, the order dated 13.04.2007 allowing the amendment of complaint is illegal. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court titled as Mis Kumar Rubber Industries, Kapurthala us. Sohan La! reported as 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 111, V.K. Gupta v. Manjit Kaur reported as 2008(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 430, as well as, the judgment of Madras High Court titled as Vinayagam and others us. Subhash Chandran and etc. 2000(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 4 to state that an amendment which may result in covering the limitation cannot be permitted and that there was no provision in the Cr.P.C for amendment. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, raised two preliminary objections. Firstly, the petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. without putting even their personal appearance before the trial court. They put in their appearance only when the warrants of arrest were issued and stated that the petition should be dismissed on this ground alone and relied on the judgment in the case titled as M/s J.K. Syntheics Ltd. and ors. us. Sh. N.C. Sharma 1993(2) RCR 426. Secondly, the petitioners have sought quashing of the summoning order P-4 and all subsequent proceedings, as well as, the order of amendment which is amenable to revision under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. hence, the petitioners, instead of filing the revision against the summoning order P-4 have straightway invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, should be relegated to the remedy of filing the revision petition.