Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anupam Aggarwal vs Gopal Krishan Malhotra on 1 August, 2012
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Paramjeet Singh
Crl. Misc. No. M-10013 of 2012 (O&M) -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-10013 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision:August 01, 2012.
Anupam Aggarwal
... Petitioner(s)
v.
Gopal Krishan Malhotra
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: Shri Harminderjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Paramjeet Singh, J. (Oral):
Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing complaint No.86/25.1.2012 and the summoning order dated 25.1.2012 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana.
The complaint has been filed making averment that accused No.1 is a private limited firm and accused No.2 and 3 are its Directors who carry on day to day business for and on behalf of accused No.1 and are incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of accused No.1. The said accused issued cheques No.573739 dated 5.12.2011 for Rs.3,50,000/- and No.177875 dated 5.12.2011 for Rs.3,00,000/-. The said cheques remained unpaid and the accused were not having any arrangement of funds. As a result of this, the cheques were dishonoured. Legal notice was issued. Thereafter, for non payment of alleged loan advanced by the complainant, the present complaint has been filed and after appreciating the evidence, the petitioner along with other accused, has been summoned vide Crl. Misc. No. M-10013 of 2012 (O&M) -: 2 :- order dated 25.1.2012.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no averment in the complaint that how the petitioner is performing her day to day work. Learned counsel further contends that cheques have not been signed by the petitioner. Learned counsel further contends that there is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioner is running the business of the firm. To substantiate this contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Mrs. Anita Malhotra v. Apparel Export Promotion Council and another, 2011(4) RCR (Civil) 930 and a judgment passed by this Court in Sukarsh Azad v. Lafarge Aggregates and Concrete India Private Ltd., 2011(5) RCR (Criminal) 36.
I have considered the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner.
In the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that in spite of number of Directors, petitioner herein and another Director are the only persons responsible for the day to day working of the firm. The said para reads as under:-
"1. That the accused no.1 is a private limited company and accused No.2 and 3 are its Directors who carry on day to day business for and on behalf of accused no.1 and are incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of accused no.1."
Reading of the above paragraph shows that accused No.2 and 3 are the Directors who are carrying on day to day business for and on behalf of accused No.1 and they are incharge and responsible for the day to day Crl. Misc. No. M-10013 of 2012 (O&M) -: 3 :- affairs of accused No.1. This is sufficient compliance of the provisions whereunder the complainant is not supposed to give minute details of the functioning of the company. The petitioner has not annexed the Memorandum of Articles indicating that who are the persons responsible for the day to day affairs of the company. The petitioner has concealed the best evidence indicating who are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The case law cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is apt to observe that in the complaint every minute details is not required to be given as it is just like an FIR where evidence can come and during evidence, this can be explained by the complainant.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the cheques in question were only security cheques. Counsel has failed to show any document from which it can be gathered that there was some agreement between the parties and the cheques were given as security for the transaction. It is settled principle of law that even blank cheques, if dishonoured, are covered under the provisions of Section 19 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
No merit.
Dismissed.
[ Paramjeet Singh ] August 01, 2012. Judge kadyan