Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravinder Bansal vs Shiv Kumar Arora And Others on 29 May, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Criminal Misc. No.M- 14168 of 2011 (O&M) 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Criminal Misc. No.M- 14168 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision:29.5.2013
Ravinder Bansal
......Petitioner
Versus
Shiv Kumar Arora and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr.Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
None
for the respondents.
****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.41 dated 14.2.2008 under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- " the Act") read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure P-2).
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had neither signed the cheque nor had any concern with M/s Tip Info-Center Pvt. Ltd. at the time of issuance of the cheque Criminal Misc. No.M- 14168 of 2011 (O&M) 2 in question. In fact, petitioner was a share holder of the company and had transferred his shares in favour of Santosh Warokar and Rajesh Shukla vide Annexure P-4 on 10.8.2007. Initially, Santosh Warokar and Nitin Kumar were the directors of the company. Later on vide Annexure P-4, Rajesh Shukla was appointed as Additional Director of the company.
None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. In the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal,, 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335, the Apex Court has held as under:-
"The following categories of cases can be stated by way of illustration wherein the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Can be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently chennelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:-
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complainant/respondent No.2, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report Criminal Misc. No.M- 14168 of 2011 (O&M) 3 and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1)of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do no disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a Police Officer without an order of Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted)to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of aggrieved party.Criminal Misc. No.M- 14168 of 2011 (O&M) 4
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." In the present case, complaint in question has been filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the petitioner under Section 138 of the Act with regard to dishonour of cheque in question dated 13.12.2007. As per the contentions in the petition, the cheque in question was not signed by the petitioner but has been signed by respondent No.2.
A perusal of Annexure P-3, Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company reveals that respondents No.2 and 3 were the directors of the company. So far as petitioner is concerned, he was a share-holder of the company.
A perusal of Annexure P-4 reveals that the petitioner had transferred his shares in favour of respondent No.2 Santosh Warokar Criminal Misc. No.M- 14168 of 2011 (O&M) 5 and Rajesh Shukla. Vide Annexure P-4, Rajesh Shukla was appointed as Additional Director of the company and Nitin Kumar had resigned from the directorship of the company.
Thus, a perusal of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company reveals that the petitioner was not the director of the company. Moreover, petitioner had transferred his shares in favour of respondent No.2 Santosh Warokar and Rajesh Shukla on 10.8.2007 before issuance of the cheque in question.
Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal complaint No.41 dated 14.2.2008 under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Act read with Section 420 IPC (Annexure P-1) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure P-2), qua the petitioner, are quashed.
(SABINA) JUDGE May 29, 2013 anita