S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1121/2007 Piyoush Marble Pvt. Ltd. VS. Shri Nathmal Nawdhar Dated : 07.04.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri,for the petitioner. Mr. Umesh Kr. Sharma, for the respondent. *** By way of this criminal misc. petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., the accused petitioner has implored to set aside the orders dated 10th September, 2003 and 8th June, 2007 rendered by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarh and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kishangarh, District Ajmer respectively. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material including the impugned orders on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner is not the Director of the Piyush Marble Pvt. Ltd. Madanganj-Kishangarh nor any notice was served upon him before filing the complaint. Hence, the orders of the courts below with regard to taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process against the accused petitioner be set aside. He has cited two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2002)9 SCC, 415 and (2002)7 SCC 655 in support thereof. -2- Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent contended that the accused petitioner sent one letter to M/s Navdhar and Co. on 18th April, 2002 wherein he admitted the fact of giving two cheques to him but at the same time, he also stated therein that these cheques were not given to him, rather his cheque book was misplaced. He closed his account on 20th December, 2001 and asked M/s Navdhar & Co. through Shashikala and Navdhar not to draw the cheques in the Bank for getting payment. This letter clearly proves that the petitioner was directly related to M/s Piyush Marble Pvt. Ltd. Madanganj. The notice was sent by registered post to the petitioner but the same returned unserved along with A.D. Hence, it cannot be said that the notice was not served upon him. In view of this position, the petition deserves to be outrightly dismissed. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the impugned orders as also the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is noticed that the complainant-respondent gave a notice Ex.4 to the accused but that got returned along with A.D. unserved. The complainant also filed the postal receipts in the Court, which proved that the notice, in compliance with the provisions of law, was served upon him. Secondly, the accused petitioner is the concerned -3- person, who is directly associated with the transactions of business relating to M/s Piyush Marble Pvt. Ltd. Learned counsel cited two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court but none of them favours him. The learned trial Court rightly took the cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, vide order dated 10th September, 2009 and rightly issued summons to procure his appearance. This order was challenged by the accused petitioner by way of filing the criminal revision in the Court of Sessions which also stood dismissed vide order dated 8th June, 2006. Both the courts below have given concurrent finding with regard to taking cognizance of the aforesaid offence and I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders as the orders rendered by the courts below are just and proper based on sound reasoning. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition filed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. pcg