Criminal Misc. No. M-6010 of 2009 v. Avneet Singh

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. A.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for the respondent. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing complaint No. 39/2/2008, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), titled as, 'Avneet Singh Vs. Surjit Singh Corp. and others', pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar (Annexure P1), summoning order dated 08.02.08 (Annexure P12), and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioners. Criminal Misc. No. M-6010 of 2009 2

2. The facts, in brief, are that, Pawandeep Singh and Bandeep Kaur, accused-petitioners, alongwith their co-accused namely Surjit Singh, and Jagmohan, took a friendly loan of Rs. 4 lacs, on behalf of Surjit Finance Corporation, from Manish Verma son of Late Sh. Narinder Verma, complainant, on the assurance, that the same, would be repaid, on or before May, 2007. The accused-petitioners and their co-accused, with a view to discharge their legally enforceable liability, issued four cheques, amounting to Rs. 1 lac, each, to the complainant, on the assurance, that the same would be encahsed on presentation. However, when the same, were presented, by the complainant, before his banker i.e. IDBI Bank Ltd., 136, New Jawahar Nagar, Cool Road, Jalandhar, the same were dishonoured, with the remarks 'Account Closed', vide separate memos dated

29.10.07. After receiving the dishonoured cheques, the complainant, approached the accused, as a result whereof, Jagmohan, co-accused of the accused-petitioners, assured him, that the aforesaid loan amount, would be repaid, within a period of 15 days, but did not do so. Thereafter, the complainant, served a legal notice, dated 27.11.07, to the accused, under registered AD/UPC, but inspite of that, the accused, did not repay the aforesaid loan amount. It was stated that the complainant, was residing, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Division No. 1, Jalandhar, and the aforesaid cheques, were also presented, in the bank, at Jalandhar, and, as such, the Court, at Jalandhar, had jurisdiction, to entertain and try the complaint.

3. After recording the preliminary evidence of the witnesses, Criminal Misc. No. M-6010 of 2009 3 the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, summoned the accused/petitioners, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant petition, has been filed, by the accused-petitioners.

5. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioners, and, have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6. The Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners, are the son and daughter-in-law respectively of Surjit Singh, who at the relevant time, was a partner of Surjit Finance Corporation. He further submitted that, both the petitioners, had no concern, whatsoever, with the aforesaid firm. He further submitted that the petitioners, were not partners of the said finance company, at the relevant time. He further submitted that, the petitioners, did not sign the cheques, which were ultimately dishonoured on presentation. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the petitioners, were not liable for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act. He further submitted that the petitioners, were involved, in this case, just with a view to put pressure, on the entire family members of Surjit Singh. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the complaint and the summoning order, as also the subsequent proceedings, against the petitioners, if allowed to continue, would be sheer abuse of the process of law. He further submitted that the complaint, summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, arising out of the same, are Criminal Misc. No. M-6010 of 2009 4 liable to be quashed.

7. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the contentions, raised by the Counsel for the petitioners, in my considered opinion, it is a fit case, in which the complaint, the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, qua the petitioners, should be quashed, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. It was Surjit Singh, who signed the cheques. Surjit Singh, was a partner of the Finance Company. When the cheques, were presented, the same, were dishonoured. Thus, at the most, Surjit Singh and Jagmohan, who were the partners of the said firm, could be said, to be liable, for the offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioners, being the son and daughter-in-law of Surjit Singh, were neither the partners of the aforesaid firm, nor did they have any connection therewith, nor did they sign the cheques, which, on presentation, were dishonoured. It appears, that the Court of the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar, without going through the allegations, contained in the complaint, and without carefully perusing the preliminary evidence, produced on the record, as also without application of mind, in a mechanical manner, summoned the petitioners, as accused, for the commission of offence, punishable under Section 138 of the Act. In these circumstances, continuation of the complaint, as also, the summoning order, would be nothing, but the sheer abuse of the process of law. The power, vested in the Court, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., can certainly be exercised, in such like cases, with a view to do justice to the aggrieved party. In this Criminal Misc. No. M-6010 of 2009 5 view of the matter, the petition, is liable to be accepted. The complaint, as also the summoning order, and the subsequent proceedings, qua the petitioners, are liable to be quashed.

8. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-6010 of 2009, is accepted. Complaint No. 39/2/2008, under Section 138 of the Act, titled as, 'Avneet Singh Vs. Surjit Singh Corp. and others', pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar (Annexure P1), summoning order dated 08.02.08 (Annexure P12), and the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, qua the petitioners are quashed.

12.01.2010 Amodh (SHAM SUNDER) JUDGE