Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Petitioners have filed this petition invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of Criminal Complaint No.217 of 2007, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dated 24.09.2007 (Annexure P-1) passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, pending in the said Court, summoning order dated 25.09.2007, and all the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

As per the allegations in the complaint (Annexure ... 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-34477 of 2008 P-1), petitioner No.1, is a partnership concern carrying on the business of perforated sheets, wire mesh and related items, whereas petitioner nos.2 & 3 are partners of petitioner No.1, Incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of petitioner No.1. So far as petitioner Nos.4 & 5, are the persons who had represented the complainant-respondent that they being owners of petitioner Nos.2 & 3 were looking after the business and had been aiding petitioner Nos.2 & 3 in looking after the day to day operations of petitioner No.1 Company. Complainant has arrayed all the above said petitioners in his complaint as accused persons 1 to 5 claiming that petitioner Nos.4 & 5 approached him on behalf of accused Nos.2 & 3 in June 2006 with a request to advance them a temporary loan for a period of six months. Petitioner Nos.4 & 5 in the capacity as authorized representative of petitioner No.1 company and on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 & 3, being partners had been meeting the complainant. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 made a request to the complainant for advancing a loan of Rs.1 lac on or about 10.07.06 by way of temporary loan to the petitioner No.1 company against the payment of loan of Rs.1 lac a chqeue dated 31.12.06, drawn on Dena Bank, Malabar Hill Branch Mumbai, for a sum of Rs.1 lac for due repayment payable to the complainant-respondent was issued on the request of the complainant, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 have further been advanced a sum of Rs.1 lac on or about 30.06.2006, by way of temporary loan to petitioner No.1 company. The above said money was paid by the complainant to all the petitioners accused ... 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-34477 of 2008 Nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 and against the said amount, a cheque dated 31.12.2006 drawn on the same bank for Rs.1 lac for due repayment was issued to the complainant. Said loan was for a period of six months. The complainant-respondent called upon all the petitioners to return the money on its due date i.e. 31.12.2006. petitioner Nos.2 to 5 were not in a position to repay the money of Rs.2 lacs, as such, request was made which was agreed to by the complainant. Two cheques dated 31.12.06, copies of which have been attached with, for Rs.1 lac each were presented by the complainant with State Bank of Bikaner, Jaipur, Sonepat. The cheques were dishonoured vide a memo of dishonour with reason "stopped payment by drawer" and "refer to the drawer". The complainant-respondent sent a statutory notice to the accused on 25.7.07 and 26.07.07, respectively. The accused refused to receive the said notices. The complainant-respondent claimed that the complainant was required to file the complainant on or before 11.09.2007 but the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 and their sons petitioner Nos.4 & 5, with mala fide and dishonest intention just to cause delay in filing of the complaint kept on requesting the complainant for waiting for another period of 10 days to enable them to arrange the entire money as such, with a view to close the chapter of controversy of payment by receiving the entire money and to avoid litigation just to keep harmonious relations agreed to postpone the prospect of filing the complaint, as such, the complaint was filed with delay of 13 days, regarding which a separate application for condonation of delay was filed. The ... 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-34477 of 2008 petitioners were summoned vide order dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure P-2).

Counsel for the petitioners has sought quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1), of the complainant-respondent and the summoning order (Annexure P-2), inter alia, on the ground that (1) complaint filed by the respondent is barred by time; (2) The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, have exercised the discretion of condonation of delay in filing of the complaint without issuing any notice to the petitioners; and (3) No offence or part thereof has been committed within the jurisdiction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat. Without admitting the allegations in the complaint, it was contended that as per the complaint entire transaction took place at Mumbai and no part of the cause of action has arisen at Sonepat, as respondent was residing in Mumbai and petitioners are also residing in Mumbai. It was argued that jurisdiction has to be covered from the place where money was agreed to be paid and the Court at another place within whose jurisdiction cheque was merely presented for realization, cannot be said to have the jurisdiction to try the offence. No statutory notice was given to the petitioner Nos.4 & 5 as is evident from the copy of the notice. Petitioner No.3 is an old lady of 65 years and is a house wife and is a sleeping partner. She cannot be prosecuted as she is neither Incharge nor responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the firm. Petitioner No.3 is not a signatory of the cheques being a sleeping partner and petitioner Nos.4 & 5 are neither partners nor ... 4 Crl.Misc.No.M-34477 of 2008 signatory of the cheques in question. There are no averments in the complaint making out prima facie case against petitioner Nos.2 to 5, in the ingredients laid down under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

... 5 Crl.Misc.No.M-34477 of 2008 However, revision was heard and judgment was reserved on 10.11.2009. On 10.11.2008, accused petitioner No.4, Kartik Dilip Parikh, against whom non-bailable warrants pending in execution and who had been evading his arrest pertaining to non-bailable warrants, was apprehended by the police and was produced before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, on the same very day, he was produced before the trial Court where he was admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1 lac with one surety. He was further directed to make payment of Rs.2 lacs on next date of hearing and matter was adjourned to 01.12.08. On 10.11.08, the petitioners also withdrew the revision petition filed by them in the Sessions Court. The respondent vehemently urged that petitioner No.4/accused No.4 on 11.10.2008, had admitted the liability that the amounts were due and payable by the accused and offered to make payment in installments. In view of his admission before the trial Court, to make the payment of Rs.2 lacs on next date of hearing, he is estopped on account of his conduct. He has also waived his right to challenge the court proceedings as well as the territorial jurisdiction of Sonepat. The bail bond of petitioner No.4, were cancelled on 1.12.08. This petition was filed by the petitioners on 5.12.08, for quashing of the complaint pending in the trial Court at Sonepat, whereas the date fixed before the trial Court was 15.12.08. On 15.12.08, Advocate for the petitioners appeared and produced the said order dated 9.12.2008 granted by this Court. In view of the above circumstances, the complainant submitted that the liability has ... 6 Crl.Misc.No.M-34477 of 2008 been admitted and an undertaking in writing was given on 11.11.08 by the petitioner No.4 before the trial Court to pay the amount, thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed. He also argued that the petitioners are guilty of suppressing above said material facts, as such, they have played fraud on the Court. Another point raised by the respondent is that the petition is not maintainable as same grounds have been taken by the petitioners in criminal revision which was withdrawn. The present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Challenging the petition as mala fide it was argued that the petition be dismissed.

I have also considered the plea of the respondent that on account of waiver of their rights regarding the plea of jurisdiction by submitting to the jurisdiction of Sonepat, the petitioners are estopped from raising the objection of territorial jurisdiction.

... 9 Crl.Misc.No.M-34477 of 2008 I have also considered the contention of respondent that petitioner No.4, had been arrested pursuant to the non-bailable warrants issued in the complaint and that in custody, he was made to suffer a statement that a sum of Rs.2 lac will be paid by him. It is settled principle of law that there is no estoppel against the law. The complainant-respondent company had been able to get the summons issued against the petitioner from a Court and subsequently got non-bailable warrants issued prima facie without substantiating the allegations against all the petitioners. The appreciation of all the circumstances indicates that admittedly there has been a delay of 13 days in filing of the complaint and a Court has got a discretion to condone the delay in filing of the complaint as per the provisions of Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act , which was incorporated w.e.f., 06.02.2003, vide Act No.55 of 2002. Section 142 reads as follow: -