ANUJ SHARMA Vs. RAVINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of complaint case N.I.ACT-40-2016, dtd. 5/2/2016, titled as "Ravinder vs. M.S. Allianz Polymer India Ltd" (Annexure P-2) whereby petitioner has been summoned for commission of offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrumcnts Act, vide order dtd. 25/7/2016 (Annexure P3), passed by learned Magistrate, First Class, Sohna, Gurgaon, and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) In nutshell, the brief facts of the case are that a complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act' in short) has been filed before learned Magistrate, First Class, Sohna, Gurgaon, stating that respondent No.1 is partnership firm and respondent No.2 to 4 were the managing partner, the respondents in dire need took a lona of Rs.30.00 lakhs from the complainant on 23/8/2013 and assured that they will reurn the said loan after short span of time. After lapse of considerable time, the complainant approached the respondent No.3 and 4 to repay the loan and in discharge of their liability respondent No.3 and 4 issued a cheque bearing No.428977 dtd. 6/10/2015 amounting to Rs.30.00 lakhs drawn at Indian Bank Branch at Dehradun, Uttaranchal. The aforesaid cheque was presented and the same was returned with remarks "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT". Complainant contacted the petitioner and informed him about dishonour of the cheque and assured him that due to some mistake it was dishonoured and advised him to again present the same cheque. The complainant again approached the bank and the bank returned the cheque on 11/12/2015 with same endorsement "FUNDS INSUFFICIENT". The complainant again informed the accused but they did not pay any heed. Hence the complainant filed complaint No. NIACT-40-2016, dtd. 5/2/2016, titled as "Ravinder vs. M.S. Allianz Polymer India Ltd" (Annexure P-2) and vide order dtd. 25/7/2016 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Magistrate, First Class, Sohna, Gurgaon, summoned the accused/petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner, filed the present quashing petition.

(3.) It is inter alia contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and having no concern whatsoever with the allegations levelled in the complaint Annexue-P2 but has been falsely roped in and has been wrongly summoned by the learned Magistrate without applying judicious mind vide the impugned order dtd. 25/7/2016. He contends that the impugned cheque (Annexure P-5) was allegedly issued by M/s Alliance Polymer (India) and signed by its partners accused No.3 and 4 namely Sanoj Sharma and Raj Kumar Sharma. He has referred to the partnership deed of M/s Alliance Polymer (India) dtd. 3/4/2014 (Annexure P-4) to say that only accused No.3 and 4 are partner there of and the petitioner is neither the partner nor has any concern with the said firm and he has been wrongly been dragged in the present litigation without having any concern with the firm or with the issuance of the alleged cheque. He has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Shewakramani and Ors s. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr, Law Finder Doc ID # 2284880 and Mrs. Aparna A. Shah vs. M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and another, Law Finder Doc ID # 461385 and submits that as the petitioner has no concern with either the firm accused No.1 nor is he partner thereof, nor even signatory of the cheque in question so continuation of the proceedings against him on the basis of aforesaid summoning order is abuse of process of law. As such, prayed for quashing thereof, qua the petitioner.