Crl.Misc.No.M-22453 of 2011 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Misc.No.M-22453 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.7.2011 M/s Perfect Computer Network and another ......Petitioners Versus M/s I.T.World .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Y.M.Bhagirath, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** SABINA, J. Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint No.1474 dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure P-1), under Section 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- “ the Act”) and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short), 1860 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom in view of the compromise (Annexure P-3) arrived at between the parties. The complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging therein that ` 5,00,000/- had been borrowed as a loan by the accused from it in the month of August, 2007. The loan amount was Crl.Misc.No.M-22453 of 2011 (O&M) 2 agreed to be repaid within a period of three months. Accused No.2, being proprietor of the firm-accused No.1, issued a cheque bearing No.644576 dated 17.11.2007 for a sum of ` 5,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. However, when the cheque in question was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured with the report “Funds insufficient”. The trial Court after recording preliminary evidence led by the complainant, summoned the accused to face the trial under Section 138 of the Act. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint was liable to be dismissed as no cause of action was arisen at Faridabad. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance M/s Harman Electronic (P) Ltd. and another vs. M/s National Panasonic India Ltd., 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 458, wherein, it was held that the Court would not get jurisdiction merely because notice demanding payment was sent to the accused from the said place. In the said case the business transaction with the accused had been entered into at Chandigarh. Accused had issued the cheques drawn on chandigarh bank. The company registered at Delhi was having a branch office at Chandigarh. Notice demanding payment of cheque amount was sent to the accused from Delhi and the complaint was filed at Delhi. The complaint petition did not show that the cheque was presented at Delhi. The facility for collection of the cheque was availed at Chandigarh. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Crl.Misc.No.M-22453 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Admittedly, there were business dealings between the parties. The case of the complainant is that the accused had borrowed ` 5,00,000/- from the complainant and had issued the cheque in question qua repayment of the said loan amount. However, the cheque in question was dishonoured when it was presented for encashment. The cheque in question was presented for encashment at Ballabgarh. The complainant is carrying on its business at Faridabad with a branch office at Delhi. The petitioner has taken the plea in the petition that blank cheques had been issued by it in favour of complainant towards security and same had been misused. The said plea needs to be established by leading evidence. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, it would not be appropriate to quash the summoning order for want of jurisdiction. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner fails to advance the case of the petitioner as it is based on different facts. No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 27, 2011 anita