Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Pateriya vs Eagle Seeds And Biotech Limited on 30 June, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
Bench: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
M.Cr.C.No.21056/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH
ON THE 30th OF JUNE, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 21056 of 2022
Between:-
ANIL PATERIYA S/O SHRI DURGA PRASAD PATERIYA , AGED
ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE (UNITED AGRO
CHEMICALS) BANS TAL, AMARDEEP TALKIES ROAD,
RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI JITENDRA VERMA, ADVOCATE)
AND
EAGLE SEEDS AND BIOTECH LIMITED THROUGH
AUTHORIZED MR. RAVINDRA RAMESHCHANDRA
KUMAWAT, R/O- 117, SILVER SANCHORA KESAL, INFRONT
OF UNIVERSITY, 7 R.N. ROAD (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VIKRAM MALVIYA, ADVOCATE )
This application coming on for orders this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of order dated 09.04.2022 passed by the Court of 28 th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Revision No. 124/2022 2 M.Cr.C.No.21056/2022 whereby the order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in Criminal Case No. 8967/2011 rejecting an application filed by the applicant u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. and also order dated 09.03.2022 closing right of the petitioner to produce defence has been affirmed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant filed a criminal complaint u/S 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against United Agro Chemicals through petitioner stating therein him as proprietor of the aforesaid firm in the year 2011. During trial, petitioner/accused took several objections at various stages and after closing of respondent's evidence, he moved an application u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. stating therein that he was having no concern with the firm United Agro Chemicals. He was only an employee of the aforesaid firm and not an authorized signatory and in order to prove the aforesaid fact, he be permitted to call the record of Account Holder of Account No. 0150391359 of State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Raipur alongwith the concerned employee of the bank keeping the said record.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore vide order dated 02.03.2022 dismissed the aforesaid application and thereafter vide order dated 09.03.2022, closed petitioner's right to adduce defence 3 M.Cr.C.No.21056/2022 evidence. Being aggrieved by the order dated 02.03.2022, petitioner filed criminal revision before the Court of 28 th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore which was also rejected vide order dated 09.04.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is only an employee of United Agro Chemicals and not the Proprietor or authorized signatory of cheques. During cross-examination of respondent, questions in this regard were also raised and to prove this fact, record relating to Account No. 0150391359 of State Bank of India, Commercial Branch, Raipur is necessary. Learned trial Court only on the basis of application form of dealership rejected the application for summoning of the aforesaid record. He further submitted that learned revisional Court without considering the controversy involved between the parties dismissed the revision only on the ground that impugned order is an interlocutory order and revision filed against the same is not maintainable. He further submits that during the pendency of revision and this petition, petitioner's right of defence has also been closed. Impugned orders are absolutely illegal and contrary to law. Hence, the same be set aside and petitioner be permitted to summon the record of Account holder of Account No. 0150391359 from SBI, Commercial Branch, Raipur in his defence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his above 4 M.Cr.C.No.21056/2022 submissions relied upon the case of P. Chhaganlal Daga Vs. M. Sanjay Shaw[(2003) 11 SCC 486], Kalyani Baskar(Mrs.) Vs. M.P. Samppornam (Mrs.) [(2007) 2 SCC 258] and Akhilesh Sarar(Dr.) Vs. Usha Tiwari[2011(1) M.P.L.J].
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the application and submits that impugned order passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore is an interlocutory order against which revision as well as petition u/S 482 of Cr.P.C. are not tenable. Hence, this petition should be dismissed on the sole ground of tenability. In support of his above contentions, he relied upon the judgments of Apex Court passed in the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam [(2009) 5 SCC 153, Manoj Kumar Patel Vs. State of U.P. & Ors 2021(1) ACR 380 and Amar Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 2185
7. Perusal of the record reveals that criminal complaint u/S 138 of the Act, relating to this petition was filed in the year 2011 against United Agro Chemicals, through petitioner stating therein petitioner as Proprietor of the aforesaid firm. In the said complaint, respondent filed copy of application form for dealership given by the petitioner to the respondent at the time of starting of business stating therein himself as proprietor of the firm United Agro Chemicals. Complainant also filed 5 M.Cr.C.No.21056/2022 reply of the notice served upon the aforesaid firm given by the petitioner wherein it was no where mentioned that petitioner was not the authorized signatory of the aforesaid firm. In the aforesaid reply, it has specifically been mentioned that cheque in dispute was given to the respondent alongwith other cheques for security purposes. During cross-examination of the complainant, it is no where suggested that the signature on the cheque in dispute was not of the petitioner. In para 22 of the complainant's cross-examination, it has specifically been suggested that since 2008-2011, petitioner was general power of attorney holder of the aforesaid firm. After about 11-12 years of filing of the complaint and after closing of complainant's evidence, petitioner 's application filed u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. seeking permission of summoning the record relating to account holder of Account No. 0150391359, SBI Commerical Branch, Raipur does not appears to be bonafide.
8. Facts of the judgment rendered in the case of Akhilesh Saraf(supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are entirely different as in the said case objection about proprietor of the firm was taken at the stage of cognizance. In the present case, no such objection was raised at the stage of cognizance and petitioner no where deny his signature on the cheque in dispute and has himself given suggestion 6 M.Cr.C.No.21056/2022 that he was general power of attorney holder of the firm at that time.
9. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, learned trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. As the order so passed is of interim nature, therefore learned revisional Court has also not committed any error in dismissing the revision filed against the said order.
10. Hence, petition filed against the order of dismissal of application filed u/S 311 of Cr.P.C. is sans merits and liable to be rejected. But so far as the prayer made with regard to the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class closing the right of defence of petitioner is concerned, admittedly, the same was passed during the pendency of his revision petition before the revisional Court and the fact about pendency of the said revision was in the knowledge of trial Court . Therefore, the same does not appears to be justified and is liable to be set aside.
11. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore as well as the order dated 09.04.2022 passed by the 28 th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore are hereby affirmed. However, the order dated 09.03.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore is hereby set aside with direction to the trial Court to pass appropriate order after giving 7 M.Cr.C.No.21056/2022 another opportunity to the petitioner to produce his defence.
12. With the aforesaid direction, petition stands disposed of.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh) Judge sh/-
SEHAR HASEEN 2022.07.04 17:56:21 +05'30'