TANEJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Jay Switches (India) Private Limited through its authorised representative Jitender Taneja has filed this petition against State of Haryana and Tarun Bindal respondents under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. for quashing of order dated 31.03.2014 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Hisar in criminal complaint titled as Tarun Bindal Vs. Jai Switches Private Limited qua imposition of condition No. II.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that petitioner company has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case at the instance of the complainant. The facts as given in the petition are that respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint under the provisions of Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant in the complaint had arrayed the present petitioner as accused No. 1 and No. 2 on the basis of two different addresses. However, the fact remains that both accused No. 1 and No. 2 are one and the same entity. On 11.02.2006, learned JMIC, Hisar passed the summoning order against the petitioner company and was pleased to dismiss the complaint qua accused No. 3 to 6. Against partial dismissal of complaint, the complainant preferred revision petition before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hisar, who accepted the same partly and summoned accused No. 3 and for remaining accused, the petition was dismissed. It is further stated in the petition that Mr.P.C.Minda has been arrayed as accused No. 3 in the complaint and he being an old aged, infirm and suffering from serious diseases, moved an application for seeking exemption from personal appearance. The said prayer was granted by learned JMIC, Hisar vide order dated 11.02.2012. It is further stated in the petition that the trial in the case continued till 18.01.2012, when the learned trial Court had directed that the proceeding should start de-novo and in fact the same is being carried out. After initiation of de-novo trial, the complainant moved an application under Sec. 319 Crimial P.C. for summoning accused No. 4 to 6 and learned JMIC, Hisar was pleased to allow the same and have summoned them to face trial. Against the summoning order, those accused preferred quashing petition before this Court and this Court has been pleased to stay the operation. It is further stated in the petition that till today only part chief examination of the complainant has been recorded as on most of the occasions, the complainant has been absent. On 07.01.2014, the company passed a resolution dated 07.01.2014, whereby Jitender Taneja was appointed as new authorised representative of the company. Accordingly, on 19.02.2014, the petitioner company had filed an application for appointing an authorised representative. It is also stated in the petition that notice of the application was issued and after hearing other party, the trial Court was pleased to allow the application but has imposed the following conditions :-

(3.) It is further stated in the petition that petitioner company is not aggrieved by condition No. I of the order dated 31.03.2014 but aggrieved by imposition of condition No. II. It is also stated in the petition that condition No. II is illegal, contrary to law and amounts to violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. The petitioner is a juristic and non-living person, being represented by an authorised representative but asking the representative to furnish bonds, amounts to issuance of direction to the company to furnish bonds and this condition is illegal and erroneous as there is no provision in the Crimial P.C. It is further stated in the petition that Sections 436 to 450 Crimial P.C. relate to these provisions. Sec. 441 Crimial P.C. relates to the provision of furnishing of bonds by an accused person and there is no provision for filing of such bonds by an authorised representative.