Punjab-Haryana High Court
K Palaniappan vs M/S Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd on 23 July, 2012
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CRM No.M-17738 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-17738 of 2009
Date of decision : 23.07.2012
K Palaniappan
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd.
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner.
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J. (Oral)
The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short, 'the Cr.P.C.') is, inter alia, for quashing the complaint dated 29.05.2008, (Annexure P-9) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (for short, 'the Act') and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the letter dated 11.04.2005, (Annexure P-2) and contends that it is the admitted case of the respondent that two blank cheques of City Union Bank bearing Nos.608552 and 608553 were sent to the respondent as security cheques. It is further contended that the cheques in question were CRM No.M-17738 of 2009 -2- allegedly signed by K. Chinniah on 03.04.2008. However, the said cheques were forged as the said K Chinniah died in a road accident on 26.10.2005. The learned counsel further argues that the firm being a proprietorship firm, Section 141 of the Act could not have been applied to the petitioner.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that whether the cheques in question were issued as security cheques and whether there was existence of any legally enforceable debt, etc. are to be determined at the stage of trial at the appropriate stage.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. As disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case, which will be dealt with at the appropriate stage during the trial, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought for at this stage. The charges have been framed and the case is fixed for the evidence of the PWs. The petitioner is at liberty to take up all the pleas raised in the present petition before the trial Court.
In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
23.07.2012 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) atulsethi JUDGE
Note : Whether to be referred to reporter ? Yes / No