AVTAR KISHAN NARANG AND ANOTHER Vs. SUNNY SACHDEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal complaint no. 45 dated 14.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magisrate, Tohana, Haryana and the summoning order dated 14.01.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Tohana and all proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the respondentcomplainant filed the above said complaint against the petitioners and two other persons for the dishonouring of cheque bearing No. 588678 dated 31.05.2009 for a sum of 1,00,000 and after recording pre-summoning evidence, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate summoned the petitioners alongwith the other two persons vide order dated 14.01.2010. It was alleged that the cheque in question was signed by Narinder Puri, the Director of the company namely M/s. Seven Seas Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. with which the petitioners have no concern and photocopy of the said cheque was appended with the present petition and accordingly quashing was prayed for on the ground that the summoning order had been passed in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without recording any reasons and there were no averments much less any specific averments which are required in law to result the summoning of the present petitioners. It was pleaded that the cheque had been signed by Narinder Puri, Director of the company namely M/s. Seven Seas Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd. and the petitioners were not running or owing the company and no liability whatsoever could be passed on the petitioners on the alleged dishonouring of the cheque. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners was an abuse of process of law and petitioners had been arrayed as accused only to pressurize and arm twist the accused-company into a settlement favourable to the complainant-side. The provisions of Section 202 Cr.P.C. had also not been followed.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued by this Court on 13.07.2011 and personal appearance of the petitioners was initially exempted. The report of service by the office was that the complainant had refused to accept the notice and notice had been affixed at his shop. Accordingly, it was directed that the respondent be served through counsel who was representing him in the trial court. Thereafter, the report of the office was that the counsel had been served but had requested for supply of the copy of petition. Accordingly, this Court on 14.03.2012, noticed as per office report that the service was complete and nobody was present on behalf of the respondent and the case was listed for today i.e. 06.07.2012. Counsel for the petitioner has taken pains to assist the Court and even today, none is present on behalf of the respondents.