Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) -1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. (1) Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.08.2011. Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (2) Crl. Misc. No. M-15809 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (3) Crl. Misc. No. M-15944 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (4) Crl. Misc. No. M-15945 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) -2 - (5) Crl. Misc. No. M-15946 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (6) Crl. Misc. No. M-15947 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (7) Crl. Misc. No. M-15948 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (8) Crl. Misc. No. M-15949 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) -3 - (9) Crl. Misc. No. M-15950 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (10) Crl. Misc. No. M-15951 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (11) Crl. Misc. No. M-15952 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (12) Crl. Misc. No. M-15953 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) -4 - (13) Crl. Misc. No. M-15954 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (14) Crl. Misc. No. M-15955 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (15) Crl. Misc. No. M-15956 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (16) Crl. Misc. No. M-15957 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) -5 - (17) Crl. Misc. No. M-15958 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (18) Crl. Misc. No. M-15959 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (19) Crl. Misc. No. M-15960 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (20) Crl. Misc. No. M-16237 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) -6 - (21) Crl. Misc. No. M-16238 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent (22) Crl. Misc. No. M-16239 of 2010 (O&M) Sudesh Kumar Aggarwal ........Petitioner Vs. Punjab Agro Industries Corporation Limited ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. V.K.Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. ..... SABINA, J. Vide this order, the above mentioned petitions would be disposed of by a common order as the controversy involved in all the cases is similar. Petitioner has sought quashing of different complaints filed against the rice mill by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaints in question were liable to be quashed as no criminal offence was made out in the present case. The cheques Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) -7 - in question had been issued by way of security. There was no legal liability qua which the cheques in question had been allegedly issued. The award qua recovery has been passed against the petitioner, after the filing of the complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that paddy had been given to the mill for milling. However, there was shortage qua paddy and the petitioner had asked the respondent to present the cheques in question to make up the shortage of paddy. When the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured. Hence, the complaints in question were filed. The award had been passed against the petitioner qua shortage of paddy. In order to avoid its liability, the petitioner had sold the property of the mill after the passing of the award. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petitions deserves dismissal. The case of the complainant in brief is that M/s Kapurthala Rice Mills was a partner concern and Sudesh Kumar was one of its partner. The complainant entered into an agreement with the mill for milling of paddy. On physical verification, shortage of paddy was discovered. The accused, in order to repay the amount of ` 1,23,49,736/- along with partial interest, issued the cheques in question. However, when the cheques were presented for encashment, they were dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Hence, the complaints were filed. Admittedly, award has been passed against the petitioner qua recovery of the amount qua shortage of paddy. The award in question has admittedly been upheld upto this Crl. Misc. No. M-10843 of 2008 (O&M) -8 - court. The petitioner has taken the plea that the cheques in question had been issued by way of security and hence, there was no legal liability which could be enforced by way of the complaints. On the other hand, the plea of the respondent corporation is that the cheques in question were presented for encashment at the instance of the mill as shortage was detected on physical verification of the paddy. The pleas taken by both the sides require to be proved by way of evidence. At this stage without any evidence on record it cannot be said that the petitioner had no legal liability to issue the cheques or that the cheques had merely been given by way of security and had not been presented for encashment at the instance of the mill. The petitioner can establish his plea during trial. It would not be just and expedient to scuttle the criminal proceedings at the very threshold. Hence, no ground for interference by this court is made out. Dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 17, 2011 Gurpreet