4 445 1 7 Criminal Misc NoM 15of 2006 1 4 lN THE HlGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CriminalMisc NoM 15of 2006 08Ml Dateofdecision j3 01010 m r The CommercialBank Employees Urban 43 Petitioner I C5 versus Z Inder Pal Juneja 2 I CORAM HONBlE MRJUSTICE KCPURJ a5 Present Mr Harsh Kinra Advocate for thepetitioner e Z in person K CPURl J The presentpetitionunder Section 482 CrPC has been 61ed by the petitioner with a prayer to quashlsetaside the judgmentdated 28102005 4nnexure Pe59passedby learned Additional SessionsJudge Rohtak wherebythe criminal revlS100 flled by the againstthe notice of acquisitiondated 16052 005 served by the lcarned Judicial Magistratc Ist Class Rohtak hasbeen set aside and therespondent stood while accepting thcrevision petition Brief facts of the case are that the ls a registeredsocietyunder the Haryana SocietyAct 1984 and Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.12 12: 03 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 446 1 Critninal Misc NcM115 of 2006 2 1 4 RajeshKumar beingManagerof the SocietylS to flle the complaint One Brij Mohan has taken a loan from the societyand stood surety The to clear his Iiabilityhad issued a chequebearingNo847504 dated 10062004 for 1 Rs622041 Ill favour of and drawn by SyndicateBank 0 Contonincnt New Delhi at the ofllcc of societyie Prem 0 C NagarRohtak The the said cheque to his Banker 0 Allahabad Bank Rohtak on 110620041for encashmentbut the same was I dishonoured being funds insufficient After of cheque the rcqucstcd the accused to makc the paymentof above said amountbut in vain That the accusedhad assuled at the time of issuingthecheques c5 to the lhat the chequewould be honoured But the accused intentionallydcliberatelyand knowingfully well that the same on lts 7 would be dishonoured Thus the accused has cheated the tl and also dcfhiuded hiin and theaccusedhas committedoffence under Section 138 of Negotiable InstrumcntsAct and 420 IPC A legalnotice dated 30062004 was scnt to the accusedbut of no use After recording evidence the was orderedto be suminonedvide order dated 163005 Tlle petitionerthcreafter feeling dissatisOed from the summoningorder dated 163005 preferred reviSlOtl petitionbefore the learnedAdditional SessionsJudgeRohtak for settingaside the impugned order dated 1652005 and to dismissthe complaint Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.12 12: 03 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 447 1 1 Criminal Misc NoM 15of 2006 3 9 The learned Additional SessionsJudge Rohtak after hearing the accusedletitioner and learnedcounsel for the vide order dated 2810 2 005 accepted the revlSlOn petitiondismissed the complaint and the 1 C Feelingdissatisfled from the order dated 28 102005 the 0 P0 hS PrefnedteSmt POOne C I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and I 0 in personand have gonethrough the recordsofthe case I Learned counscl for the petitionerhas submined that the Z Ieamed Additional Sessions Judgehas acceptedthe revlsion petitiononly r on the groundthat there is no liabilityof the bearer of the chequeieee I accusedagainstthe The case ofthe is 08 that accused stoodguarantorfor the repaymentof the debts of BrijMohan The can be flled againstthe guarantoralso ln view of authority m7 Z 1CllS Ltd vse Beemna Shabeer and another AIR 2002 Supreme G Court 3014 The debtsofthe principal debtor is extensivewith the debtof guarantorSo it cannot be said that therewas no debt 1e no legalIiability The impugned order is liable to be set aside on this groundalone Respondentwho is in person has supporledthe impugned judgmentand has submittedthat Brij Mohan has different account No 1193 whereasthechequein questionwas bearing account Nol 194 1 belonging to the It is admittedby the counsel for the partiesthat thereis no Iiabilityin respectof the loan amount of the respondentThe chequein question1Snot in respectof liabilityof Brij Mohan In fact the complainantfllcd complaintunder Section 138 of the Act againstBrij Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.12 12: 03 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 448 CriminalMisc NoM 15of 2006 4 Mohan regardi ng the same ainountwhich has been claimed from the accused in the In that coinplaintBrij Mohan was declared offcnderand that flle has beenconsigned to recordsin the year 2003 lt is submittedthat the and Brij Mohan have raised loan t from the Different blank chequesused to be taken by the from them when the Ioan is advanced The blank cheque 0 3 issuedby the in respectof his loan amount has been I C5 used by the complainant111the presentcase There is no agreementof placedon the flle by the So this fact clearlyshows that had not stoodguarantorfor the repaymentof the loan So 1 theauthorityIeCDS Ltds case fsupral mentionedabove does not help thepetitioner in any manner I C 1 havcconsidered the submissionsmadeby both the sides and havegonethroughthc recordsofthe case 7 Z lt is admittedbythe Iearnedcounsel for the petitioner that Brij Mohan raisedIoan from the and under Section138 of the Act wcre initiated againsthim lt is also not disputed that said Brij Mohan was declared proclaimed offender and that Ole was consigned to record room in the year 2003 The back side of the cheque contalns account No 194 which belongedto the and it 1S also not disputed that account of Brij Mohan was differeni So thechequein question cannot be said to be in respectof liabilityof Brij Mohan cannot Ole two undcr Section 138 of the Act againstBrij Mohan the principaldebtor and againsttherespondentwho is alleged to be a guarantor Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.12 12: 03 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 449 1 CriminalMisc NoMl 15of 2006 5 It is not that thereis no Iegaliabilityof accused of his loan account as all the amount has been statedto in be paidbyhim From the perusal ofthe complaint under Section 138ofthe Act it is clear that it is nowherementionedthat any guaranteeagreement m r was executedbythe accused in respectof the loan of Brij Mohan So the 0 authorityleCeDeSeLtdes case 4supral relicd upon by the leamed counsel C forthepetitioner doesnot helpthepetitioner ln any manner I C5 In view of the above discussion petitionunder Section 482 CrPC is withoutany merit and thesame standsdismissed Z A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Court for strict ICCPUR1 I a5 JUDGE 2010 1 1I7 SVe Z 1 f 19 ry5 Batra Amit Sh. Charanjit Batra 2012.06.12 12: 03 True Scannend Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document