HIMACHAL CO-OPERATIVE NON AGRICULTURE THRIFT AND CREDITS SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. DYNAMIC MEGA MART PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The present petitions have been maintained by the petitioner(s), under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for directing the learned Court below to dispose of the complaint(s) of the complainant-petitioner(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') in a time bound manner. As per the petitioner(s), respondent No.1-Company duly incorporated, under the Companies Act and respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as 'accused persons') being Director of the same. The complainant(s) presented the cheque(s) before the Bank i.e. The Baghat Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Solan, within the statutory period. Their Bank i.e. State Bank of India, Solan, vide memo, returned the cheque(s) as unpaid with a reason payment stopped by drawer "Joint Signatures Required". Respondent No.2, responsible for the day-to-day business of the Company and also for its management besides other activities more specifically for making sufficient arrangements in the Account of the Company, so that all the cheques those are issued on behalf of the Company are duly and properly encashed. Therefore, respondent No.2, being responsible day-to-day affairs, management and business of the Company signed, executed and delivered the cheque(s) duly complete in all respects that he will make proper arrangement of funds etc. for due and proper encashment of the said cheque(s). The complainant, therefore, believed him and accepted the said cheque(s). Respondent No.2, did not act with due diligence and remained negligent deliberately knowingfully well that he has issued the cheque(s) in favour of the complainant(s) and is legally liable to make the proper and sufficient arrangement for encashment of the cheque(s). Respondents No.1 and 2 are running various business under different trade names. As such, the petitioner(s) prays that specific directions be issued to the learned Court below to decide the matter within time bound manner.

(3.) Replies to the petition(s) have been filed and it has been averred that the respondent has not issued any cheque to the petitioner nor there was any alleged loan liability. The petitioner has forged the alleged cheque(s) with malafide intention to grab money from the respondents. The petitioners have misused the blank security cheques of the respondents despite the fact that no outstanding amount was due against the respondents.