CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-32030 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 20, 2011 M/s DSL Rice Mills, Village Kumkalan, Distt. Ludhiana and another .....Petitioners VERSUS M/s Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Chandigarh ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. H.B.S.Baidwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Rice Mill-petitioner and its proprietor have filed this petition for quashing the complaint dated 1st July, 2010 pending with Special Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The ground to seek quashing is that the matter is covered by arbitration clause and accordingly no criminal liability would arise in this case against the petitioners. As can be seen from the complaint, the petitioners entered into an agreement with the complainant-PUNSUP on 6.10.2008 for custom milling of paddy at their rice mill situated at Kohara Kumkalan Road, District Ludhiana. The CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-32030 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: complainant had stored paddy for custom milling with the petitioners, who was to supply the rice for delivery to F.C.I in the accounts of the complainant. The petitioners gave receipt on 12.11.2008 regarding shortage of paddy at their premises for custom milling. The petitioners were to deliver the custom milled rice upto 31.3.2009. This date was extended. The Government also issued instructions to obtain value of the custom milled rice from the miller who failed to deliver the rice to F.C.I. at the rate of `2019.54P per quintal. The rate was to increase 2039.73 per quintal if payment was made in the month of March 2010. The petitioners had given three cheques out of which two cheques, dated 30.11.2009 and 15.12.2009 were for `70 lacs each whereas third cheque dated 31.12.2009 was for `65,53,000/- All cheques were drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Ropar and were towards value of undelivered custom milled rice, which the petitioners failed to deliver. The total value of the undelivered custom milled rice worked out to be `1,05,84,032/-. Once the petitioners did not deliver this rice, the cheques were presented but these were received back dishonoured on 3.4.2010 with the remarks “payment stopped”. The District Manager, PUNSUP, returned these cheques alongwith memos of the Bank to the complainant. The cheques were received back dishonoured for want of CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-32030 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: sufficient funds. Accordingly, the present complaint was filed in which the proceedings are in progress against the petitioners. There may be an arbitration clause but civil liability is distinct from the criminal liability. That would arise on account of dishonouring of cheques, which were given to the complainant for realization in case the custom milled rice stocked with the petitioners and belonging to the complainant was not supplied back. Obviously, this would also indicate criminal breach of trust and misappropriation, apart from liability that would arise on account of dishonouring of the cheques. In any case, all such pleas would have to be properly raised before the Court, where the proceedings are in progress. Section 482 Cr.P.C. can not be used by such like scrupulous elements who have cheated the Government and its agencies and are not willing to discharge the liabilities by entering into litigation. The filing of petition may be an abuse of process but not the complaint and case can not be termed so. Reference here can be made to State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta and others, 2004(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 233, where it is held that the Court can not assume the role of Trial Court to say that the allegations made against the petitioners, on the basis of material, would not ultimately stand proved or not. That will be the role of Trial Court. CRIMINAL MISC. NO.M-32030 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: No case for interference, therefore, is made out. The petition is accordingly dismissed. October 20, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE