Crl.M.No.17846-M OF 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.17846-M OF 2010 Date of Decision: 29.6.2010 Shruti Bulk Drugs and others ....Petitioner(s) Versus Surya Pharmaceutical Ltd ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Tarun Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners. JASWANT SINGH, J Petitioners have approached this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of complaint (P.1) No.506 dated 11.1.2008 titled as “Surya Pharmaceutical Limited Vs. Shruti Bulk Drugs Pvt Ltd and Ors” filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending in the court of JMIC, Chandigarh for 21.7.2010 and all subsequent proceedings on the ground of dishonour of cheque of Rs.60 lacs issued by the petitioners in favour of respondent Surya Pharmaceutical Ltd. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that it has been admitted in the complaint itself that the goods/medicines are still in the godown of the complainant and, therefore, no acknowledged debt can be construed. It is, therefore, contended that the complaint is not maintainable. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusing Crl.M.No.17846-M OF 2010 #2# the paper book, plea raised on behalf of the petitioners cannot be accepted. A perusal of purchase order dated 17.10.2007 (P.2 collectively) reveals that the petitioners had placed an order upon the respondent-manufacturer for supply of bulk drugs on 3rd party export basis. It appears that in pursuance to the purchase order, respondent manufactured the bulk drugs and raised proforma invoice so that the goods could be dispatched. Accordingly, the petitioners issued Cheque No.323214 dated 29.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- towards part payment against proforma invoice for Rs.1,05,46,500/-. It further appears that after the finalization of the contract, the petitioners backed out from their contractual obligation due to rates of the manufactured drugs having fallen in the international market, resulting into the complaint being filed by the respondent-manufacturers. After considering the facts of this case, it is evident that the issue in hand can only be determined after both the parties have led their respective evidence before the trial Court, and as such no interference by this Court is made out at this stage. Dismissed. June 29, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE