KARAN PARTAP SINGLA Vs. PANKAJ SINGHANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing of complaint No.7011/16 dtd. 14/7/2016 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter 'NI Act') (Annexure P-1), ex parte order dtd. 15/7/2016 condoning the delay in filing the complaint(Annexure P-2), order dtd. 22/7/2016 for summoning the petitioners(Annexure P-3), notice of accusation dtd. 8/9/2017(Annexure P-4), order dtd. 27/3/2017 passed by Ld. JMIC, Ludhiana dismissing the application for dropping proceedings against the petitioners and order dtd. 23/5/2017 passed by Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana disposing of the revision petition filed by the petitioners against order dtd. 27/3/2017(Annexure P-7).

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the accused approached the complainant-Respondent No. 1 for a loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 (five lac rupees), on behalf of M/s Vinayak Industries- Respondent No. 2 claiming to be partners in the said firm. The loan of Rs.5,00,000.00 was issued to them by Respondent No.1 vide cheque dtd. 22/1/2015. On repeated requests of the complainant, co-accused Sunil Kumar Singla issued him a cheque dtd. 18/5/2016 for Rs.5,00,000.00 to discharge their legally enforceable debt. The said cheque was dishonoured by complainant's bank vide memo dtd. 18/5/2016. A legal notice dtd. 25/5/2016 was sent to the accused by the complainant through his counsel. However, the accused failed to make the payment within the stipulated period of 15 days causing the complainant to file a complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the complaint (Annexure P-1) was filed beyond the period of limitation but the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 15/7/2016 (Annexure P-2) condoned the delay without giving any notice to the petitioners and further, vide ex parte order (Annexure P-3) summoned the petitioners. It is further contended that the petitioners do not have any concern with the firm namely M/s. Vinayak Industries as petitioners were never the partners of the said firm and their implication in the impugned claim was contested by the petitioners at the stage of issuance of notice of acquisition under Sec. 251 CrPC but vide order dtd. 27/3/2017 (Annexure P-6) learned trial Court rejected the application of petitioner and ordered serving of notice upon them. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order by filing a revision petition before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ludhiana and vide order dtd. 23/5/2017 the learned Revisional Court directed the learned trial Court to consider the plea raised by the petitioners at the time of service of notice of acquisition under Sec. 251 CrPC and held that the petitioners would be at liberty to raise their pleas before the trial Court. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned orders (Annexures P1 to P4).