MANISH KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. LUCKY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of complaint titled 'Lucky Kumar, Sole Proprietor of M/s Aggarwal Khad Store, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa v. Manish Kumar, Sole Proprietor of M/s Manish and Company, Bhikhi, Tehsil and District Mansa and another', Annexure P1, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act') as also the summoning order dated 8.9.2014 at Annexure P2 and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that a complaint was filed by the complainant-respondent against the petitioners under Section 138 of the Act with the averments that Manish Kumar and Company had purchased 'Narma' on credit from the complainant on different dates. Towards re-paying an enforceable debt, cheque bearing No.028612 dated 30.6.2014 for Rs. 1,63,300/- in the name of the firm of the complainant was issued and which was signed by Vinod Kumar, respondent No.2 and at the instance of Manish Kumar, respondent No.1 in the presence of the complainant. Such cheque was stated to be drawn on HDFC Bank, Branch Bhikhi pertaining to Bank Account No.14267960000648. The cheque was presented on 2.7.2014 for clearing through Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Bhikhi.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the false complaint has been lodged by the complainant/respondent and the summoning order has been passed in a routine and mechanical fashion, and perusal thereof would reveal that there has been no application of mind inasmuch as it is not a detailed order. That apart, it has been argued that the present petitioners were not the owners/proprietors of the firm i.e. Manish and Company on the date the cheque was issued on account of the fact that on 1.10.2013, petitioner No.1 had sold the firm M/s Manish and Company to Sunil Kumar along with all its liabilities and, accordingly, it was Sunil Kumar who had issued the cheque in question for Rs. 1,63,300/-. Further submission raised is that petitioner No.2, namely, Vinod Kumar was only an authorized signatory of the firm and not the owner or the proprietor of the firm and as such, he could not be held responsible for the affairs of the firm in question.