Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 617 (PNJ)

J. S. International v. Picric Ltd.

2002-05-31

V.M.JAIN

body2002
Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC., filed by the accused petitioner seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that complainant-respondent M/s. Picric Limited filed a criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, under Section 138 of the Act, and under Section 420 IPC against accused petitioners. M/s. J.S. International and Joginder Singh, proprietor of M/s. J.S. International. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the complainant was doing the business of sale of rice and that during the course of said business complainant supplied rice to the accused and in lieu thereof, accused made part payment of Rs. 2.50 lacs, vide cheque dated 23-7-1996, in favour of the complainant. It was alleged that when the said cheque was deposited for encashment, the same was received back dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by the drawer" on 1-2-1997. It was alleged that after receiving the dishonoured cheque, the complainant requested the accused for the payment of the said amount along with interest but he did not pay any heed. It was alleged that the complainant sent legal notice to the accused through his counsel on 1-2-1997, which was got issued by the complainant to the accused petitioner under Section 138 of the Act. Annexure P1/A is the copy of the statement made by PW1 Mohinder Kumar, bank officer with regard to the dishonour of the cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- dated 23-7-1996. He stated that the said cheque was presented on 20-1-1997 and that it was returned back with the remarks that the payment had been stopped by the drawer. 3. In the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC., filed by the accused petitioner, it has been alleged that the cheque in question was time barred because it was presented after the expiry of the period of its validity, as would be clear from the statement Annexure P1/2. It was further alleged that Jatinder Vardhan, Personnel Manager of complainant company. M/s. Piric Limited, was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the company. It was alleged that the complainant has supplied rice to the accused and the accused had made the payment for Rs. 2.50 lacs vide cheque dated 23.7.1996. It was further alleged that Jatinder Vardhan, Personnel Manager of complainant company. M/s. Piric Limited, was not competent to file the complaint on behalf of the company. It was alleged that the complainant has supplied rice to the accused and the accused had made the payment for Rs. 2.50 lacs vide cheque dated 23.7.1996. It was alleged that the accused had sent letter to the complainant that if the dispute regarding quality and rate of the broken rice was not settled, he would write to the banker to stop the payment. It was alleged that a number of letters were exchanged between the parties for the settlement of the dispute between them and that subsequently civil dispute between the parties was settled. It was alleged that no offence under Section 138 of the Act, was made out against the accused petitioners. 4. The said petition was contested by the complainant-respondent M/s. Picric Limited, by filing written reply, alleging therein that no case for quashing the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act, was made out. It was alleged that in the said criminal complaint, the learned Magistrate had ordered summoning of the petitioners as accused vide order dated 8.5.1998 and that in the present petition the petitioners had not specifically challenged the summoning order and as such the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was alleged that the cheque in question was dated 23-7-1996 and it was received by the complainant on 1-2-1997 and as such it could not be said that the cheque had already expired when it was presented. It was further alleged that the complaint was filed by M/s. Picric Limited through its authorised person Jatinder Vardhan, who was authorised by the company as per copy of the resolution attached with he written reply. It was denied that any letter referred to by the petitioners was received by the complainant regarding the dispute over the quality and rate of the broken rice. Other allegations contained in the petition were also denied. It was also denied that the matter regarding cheque in question was compromised between the parties, in the civil suit or otherwise. 5. No one had put in appearance either on behalf of the accused petitioners or on behalf of the complainant-respondent. 6. Other allegations contained in the petition were also denied. It was also denied that the matter regarding cheque in question was compromised between the parties, in the civil suit or otherwise. 5. No one had put in appearance either on behalf of the accused petitioners or on behalf of the complainant-respondent. 6. I have gone through the allegations made in the petition and the reply as also the various annexures annexed therewith. 7. In my opinion, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. In the present petition filed by the accused petitioners, nothing was stated about the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate. However the complainant-respondent in the written reply, had alleged that the summoning order was passed by the learned Magistrate on 8.7.1998. This order has not been challenged by the accused petitioners in the present petition. Be that as it may, the fact remains that accused petitioners are seeking quashment of the criminal complaint which was pending against them, in which summoning order had been passed and the petitioners had not put in their appearance as accused. Various grounds taken by the petitioners in the present petition for seeking quashment of the aforesaid complaint, in my opinion, cannot be made basis for quashing the aforesaid complaint. The cheque is dated 23.7.1996 which was presented on 20.11.1997. Prima facie, at this stage, it could not be said that the cheque was presented after the expiry of the validity period. On the other hand, the cheque was dishonoured by the bank not on the ground that it was presented after the expiry period but on the ground that the payment had been stopped. The complaint was filed by the company through its authorised representative Mr. Jatinder Vardhan, Personnel Manager of the company. Prima facie, at this stage, it could not be said that Jatinder Vardhan was not authorised to file complaint on behalf of M/s. Picric Limited. The fact remains that the cheque for Rs. 2.50 lacs was dishonoured because the payment was stopped. Prima facie, offence under Section 138 of the Act, would be made out against the accused petitioners. With regard to the dispute regarding the quality and rate and with regard to the compromise in the civil suit, in my opinion, the same cannot be gone into by this Court, at this stage and would be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. With regard to the dispute regarding the quality and rate and with regard to the compromise in the civil suit, in my opinion, the same cannot be gone into by this Court, at this stage and would be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage. So far as present petition is concerned, in my opinion, the same is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 8. In view of the above, finding no merit in this petition the same is hereby dismissed. 9. Since the framing of charges qua petitioners was stated (stayed) by this Court while issuing notice to the respondent, the trial Court is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law.