Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 154 (PNJ)

Ramkaran Meena v. Indo Farm Industries Limited

2013-02-08

L.N.MITTAL

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) - Accused Ramkaran Meena has filed this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for quashing of criminal complaint No. 608 dated 23.4.2008 (Annexure P-4) instituted by respondent-complainant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, the Act) along with notice of accusation Annexure P/6 and judgment of revisional court Annexure P/7. 2. I need not to go into detailed facts of the case. Admitted factual position is that respondent-complainant had appointed the petitioner as dealer for sale of tractors. At the time of said appointment, a blank signed cheque was taken from the petitioner by the respondent-complainant as security. The complainant filled amount of Rs.22,85,477/- in the said cheque and on dishonour thereof, filed the impugned criminal complaint after complying with other necessary formalities. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 4. Counsel for the petitioner relying on judgment of this Court in The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited versus M/s Goyal Rice & Oil Mills and others, 2009(4) RCR (Criminal) 612 and judgment of Delhi High Court in M/s Exports India and another versus State and another, 2007(4) RCR (Criminal) 300 contended that dishonouring of cheque given as security does not give rise to offence under section 138 of the Act. No judgment to the contrary has been cited by counsel for the respondent in spite of pointed inquiry. Consequently, in view of judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (supra) as well as judgment of Delhi High Court in M/s Exports India and another (supra), there is no escape from the conclusion that in the instant case, dishonouring of the cheque which had been admittedly given by the petitioner to respondent as security would not give rise to offence under section 138 of the Act. 5. Counsel for respondent contended that the cheque amount was filled in after going through the accounts and at the instance of the petitioner, the amount filled in the cheque being due as per account statement Annexure R/1. However, this order shall have no bearing on the civil liability of the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount, if any, of the complainant. However, this order shall have no bearing on the civil liability of the petitioner to pay the outstanding amount, if any, of the complainant. In the instant case, the only question being decided is regarding culpability of the petitioner for offence under section 138 of the Act. The said offence is not made out in view of aforesaid admitted position coupled with proposition of law laid down in the cases of The Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited (supra) and M/s Exports India and another (supra). 6. Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed. Criminal complaint Annexure P/4 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom is quashed.