Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1265 (RAJ)

Saroj Chawla : Saroj Chawla v. Smt. Suman Goyal

2008-05-07

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT : 1. By these three criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal complaints and has also challenged the orders dated 9.6.2006, 18.3.2006 and 9.6.2006 respectively, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (for short, "the Trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Complaint Cases No. 953 of 2005, 335 of 2006 and 952 of 2005 respectively. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Carefully gone through the orders passed by the Trial Court, as also the complaints and the averments made therein. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner Saroj Chawla is neither the proprietor, nor the signatory to the cheques and, therefore, the criminal complaints against her are not maintainable. In support of his contention learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in Lalmani Singh v. Bhagwan Singh, 2006 (3) CJ (Raj) Cr. 1438 : 2007 (1) NIJ 113 (Raj) . 4. Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is a specific averment in para No. 1 of the complaints that the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Saroj Chawla is the proprietor of the firm M/s. J.B.D. Garments and accused No. 2 Manish Chawla is the director of the said firm and signed the cheques as the Director and, therefore, the petitioner No. 1 Smt. Saroj Chawla, being the proprietor of the said firm, as arrived in the complaint, is liable for the offence as the cheques issued by the firm, having been presented to the bank, have been returned unpaid and have been dishonoured for want of sufficient fund to the account of the firm and even after giving notices demanding the cheques amounts within the statutory period of limitation and, therefore, the complaints are maintainable. 5. It appears that in para No. 1 of the complaints, it has been specifically averred by the respondent-complainant that the petitioner Smt. Saroj Chawla is the sole proprietor of the firm J.B.D. Garments and the accused No. 2 Manish Chawla is the Manager of the said firm who issued the cheques in favour of the respondent-complainant. The said cheques, on being presented to the bank, were returned unpaid and dishonoured as there was no sufficient amount to the credit of the petitioner's firm. The said cheques, on being presented to the bank, were returned unpaid and dishonoured as there was no sufficient amount to the credit of the petitioner's firm. Thereupon legal notices requiring payment of cheques amount were given but despite notices, the petitioner and the co-accused failed to pay the cheques amount within the statutory period of limitation and, therefore, the cause of action to file complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose and accordingly the complaints were filed within the statutory period of limitation. 6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant that at this stage, the averments made in the complaints are to be seen as to whether the complaints disclose the commission of the offence or not, and not the defence of the accused is to be considered. Learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant has relied on a decision of the Orissa High Court in Ranjit Ray and another v. Pukharaj Jain, wherein it has been held that it is well settled in law that what can be a possible plea of defence, cannot be a ground for quashment of the criminal proceedings. 7. Keeping in view the averments made in the complaints, which are yet to be controverted during the trial of the cases by the petitioners, in my view, these are not the fit cases for quashing the complaints. The decision in Lalmani Singh v. Bhagwan Singh (supra), relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, turns on its own facts because in that case, there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioner therein is the proprietor of the alleged firm, whereas in the instant case, there is specific averment made in the complaints that the present petitioner is the proprietor of the said firm. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in all the three criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the petitioner and, therefore, are dismissed.Petitions dismissed.