Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sanjeev Narula S/O Sh. Madan Lal Narula vs Surender Kumar Nangia S/O Late Sh. ... on 29 September, 2022
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7618/2018
Sanjeev Narula S/o Sh. Madan Lal Narula, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o H.no.3, South Drive, Chhattarpur Farms, New Delhi.
----Petitioner
Versus
Surender Kumar Nangia S/o Late Sh. Devraj Nangia, R/o 508/6,
Raja Park, Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. M. Bhalla, Adv.
Ms. Priyal Bohra, Adv.
Mr. Shresth Vardhan, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohan Jain, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order ORDER RESERVED ON :: 23.09.2022 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 29.09.2022 This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 28.11.2016 passed by ADJ No.8, Jaipur Metro in Criminal Revision No.17/2016 and order dated 03.03.2015 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Court, Delhi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent has filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner in which trial court had taken cognizance against the petitioner vide order dated 01.11.2014. After that, petitioner was summoned and petitioner present before the trial court on 03.03.2015. He was enlarged on bail and petitioner (Downloaded on 30/09/2022 at 09:55:25 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7618/2018] objected before the trial court that Delhi High Court vide order dated 06.01.2014 in C.P. No.66/2012 has appointed the Official Liquidator and disputed cheque was dishonoured on 01.10.2014. So, present complaint is not maintainable because petitioner is not responsible for the affair of the company. So, order of the trial court as well as revisional court be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner has not challenged the order of cognizance before competent court. Contention of the petitioner is that he could not honour the cheque on account of liquidation proceeding but trial court as well as revisional court in its order clearly stated that Delhi High Court vide order dated 17.04.2014 clearly directed that Official Liquidator should not take any further action. So, petitioner had controlled over the assets of the company. So, he was responsible for dishonour of the cheque. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that revisional court vide order dated 28.11.2016 also issued notice to the Official Liquidator and also submitted that petitioner has liberty to raise all the objections at the time of trial. So, petition be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned orders.
It is an admitted position that petitioner has liberty to raise all the objections at the time of trial. So, in my considered opinion, order of the trial court as well as revisional court do not suffer (Downloaded on 30/09/2022 at 09:55:25 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7618/2018] from illegality or infirmity. So, present petition, being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
Therefore, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed.
Pending application also stands disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /88 (Downloaded on 30/09/2022 at 09:55:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)