Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 387 (RAJ)

Mohani Devi v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-02-01

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J. - Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 12.03.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrare (First Class), Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby cognizance for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was taken against the petitioner and against the order dated 17.05.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the cheque was issued by the firm. Petitioner cannot be made an accused in her individual capacity as complaint was also filed against firm through petitioner. 3. It is also contended that petitioner has not been made an accused in her individual capacity and she is made an accused only through the firm. The Court below has taken cognizance against her in individual capacity rather than taking cognizance against the firm through petitioner. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Leela Devi vs. Jagdish Raja Juni & Anr.,2016 2 CrLR 1028 (Raj.). 5. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. His contention is that petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm. As per Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, every person who is responsible for the conduct of the business can be proceeded against. It is also contended that petitioner is the sole proprietor and being the signatory to the cheque is liable to be proceeded against and Court has not committed any error in taking cognizance against the petitioner. 6. It is also contended that petitioner has already availed of the remedy of revision and there being a bar on filing of second Revision by the same person under Sub-Section (3) of Section 397 of Cr.P.C., recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Admittedly, petitioner is the sole proprietor of Lohaniwal Industries who herself has issued cheque which is subject matter of the complaint pending before the Court below. Since petitioner is the sole proprietor and is a signatory to the cheque, she is liable to be proceeded under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. I do not find any error in the impugned order. Since petitioner is the sole proprietor and is a signatory to the cheque, she is liable to be proceeded under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 9. I do not find any error in the impugned order. Since petitioner has already availed of the remedy of revision, she cannot be permitted to take recourse Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a matter pertaining to dishonor of cheque amounting to Rs.6,29,763/- only. 10. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The said cost amount be paid to the complainant. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court. 12. Stay petition stands disposed.