Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 97 (MP)

Aakash Panjwani v. Ashok Chandwani

2014-01-17

RAJENDRA MENON

body2014
ORDER 1. This application has been filed under section 482 CrPC seeking a direction for quashing Complaint Case No. 475/2012 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 2. It is the case of the petitioner that a complaint was filed by the respondent under section 138 of the Act, and based on the complaint a bailable warrant – Annexure A/1 was issued against the petitioner. It is stated that from the copy of the complaint and the documents annexed thereto, which is filed as Annexures A/2 and A/3 onwards, the petitioner has got nothing to do with the complaint and by contending that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in the complaint case, this application has been filed. It is stated that the petitioner did not have any transactions with the respondent and has not issued any cheque to him. 3. Even though notices have been issued, none is appearing for the respondent and on going through the record and the order-sheets filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the complaint was filed in the Court on 11.1.2012 and after recording the statement of complainant, notice was issued to the present petitioner and when he did not appear in spite of service of notice on 21.3.2012 bailable warrant to the tune of Rs. 500/- was issued against him. The respondent in the complaint is proprietor of M/s Awighna Advertisers. The complaint is registered against the proprietor of this Firm and the warrant and notice are issued in the name of the petitioner. Normally the learned trial Court would have gone through the documents and only on being satisfied that the petitioner is the proprietor of the said Firm, notice would have been issued in the name of the petitioner. 4. In the body of the petition, it is only stated that petitioner is neither the proprietor nor is remotely connected with the respondent firm. 5. If that be so, it is a question of fact and instead of coming to this Court with all such pleas, petitioner should have appeared before the trial Court and filed a detailed objection in this regard and it would be for the trial Court to consider all these aspects of the matter and quash the proceedings in case the petitioner is being proceeded against without any justification. 6. Neither the statement of the witnesses based on which the complaint has been registered and other documents forming part of the complaint are available with this Court. That apart, petitioner is a local resident of Jabalpur and the complaint is also registered at Jabalpur. That being so, it is not necessary for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in a petition under section 482 CrPC, when the petitioner can very well raise all these objections before the Court below and the Court can consider these objections and dismiss the complaint, if they are found to be true. 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid, it is directed that the bailable warrant issued against the petitioner shall not be executed by the Court. It is set aside. 8. However, petitioner shall appear before the trial Court along with a certified copy of this order and file his detailed objections before the Court on 3.2.2014. On the same being done, the Court shall consider the objections of the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. 9. A copy of this order be forwarded by the Registry to the Court concerned and if the petitioner does not appear before the Court on 3.2.2014 and does not comply with the directions issued by this Court, then after 3.2.2014 the learned Court shall be free to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that till 3.2.2014 and till a decision is taken by the Court on the objection raised by the petitioner, no coercive method for appearance of the petitioner shall be initiated by the Court. 11. However, if the petitioner commits default in complying with the directions issued by this Court, the Court is free to proceed in accordance with law, which shall also include taking coercive action for appearance of the petitioner. 12. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.