MITTAL PAVERS Vs. SUSHIL SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., is for quashing of the order dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure P-5), passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-complainant for leading additional evidence was dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitionercomplainant is a registered firm, which is dealing in the business of Cement Bricks. Anil Kumar was duly authorised to represent the petitioner-complainant firm vide Special-Power-of-Attorney, dated 17.10.2010. The respondent-accused, who is a contractor, had purchased Cement Bricks worth Rs. 15,00,000/- from the petitioner-complainant and in discharge of his liability, cheque bearing No. 315169, dated 15.11.2009, amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/-, drawn at Union Bank of India, Branch Office, Panipat, was issued in favour of the petitioner-complainant. The said cheque was bounced with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". After completing the formalities, the petitioner-complainant filed a complaint. The respondent-accused was summoned and after his appearance before the Court, the petitioner-complainant led its evidence. Thereafter the statement of the respondent-accused was recorded in terms of Section 313, Cr.P.C., on 13.1.2011. Immediately thereafter an application was presented by the petitioner-complainant to produce on record the Certificate of Registration of the firm to show that the same was a proprietorship firm. Copy of the Certificate of Registration, dated 14.1.2009, was annexed with the said application. The respondent-accused contested the application on the premise that the same was filed with an ulterior motive to delay the proceedings. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 22.5.2012 (Annexure P-5), dismissed the said application. The petitionercomplainant has challenged the said order in the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant contended that while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner the learned Trial Court had passed a very sketchy order. He further submitted that due to inadvertence the Certificate of Registration of the firm could not be placed on record during the course of complainant's evidence. Its production, at this stage, would not tantamount to filling up of the lacuna in the complainant's case. The Certificate of Registration has not been manufactured or created after filing of the complaint, rather bringing of the said document on record would assist the learned Trial Court to arrive at a correct conclusion of the case. He further submitted that Section 311, Cr.P.C., had been enacted for meeting such an eventuality as had been raised by the petitioner-complainant before the learned Trial Court.