CRM No.M-7909 of 2009 (O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** Date of decision : 21.9.2011 CRM No.M-7909 of 2009 (O & M) M/s Uniply Industries Limited, Chennai and another ........Petitioners Vs. M/s Shree Ek Onkar Industries, Chandpur, Yamuna Nagar ......Respondent CRM No.M-9440 of 2009 (O & M) Mr. M.L. Pramod, Director, M/s Uniply Industries Limited, Kilpauk, Chennai ........Petitioner Vs. M/s Shree Ek Onkar Industries, Chandpur, Yamuna Nagar ......Respondent CRM No.M-9442 of 2009 (O & M) M/s Uniply Industries Limited, Kilpauk, Chennai and others .....Petitioners Vs. M/s Guru Amar Industries, Yamuna Nagar ......Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present:- Mr. A.R.Takkar, Advocate, for the petitioner(s) Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the respondent --- AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) : This order shall disposed of above mentioned three petitions collectively. CRMs No. M-7909 of 2009 and M-9440 of 2009 pray for quashing of criminal complaint No. 131 of 2006 entitled M/s Shree Ek Onkar CRM No.M-7909 of 2009 (O & M) -2- Industries v. M/s Uniply Industries Limited and others and order of summoning dated 20.3.2009, CRM No.M-9442 of 2009 prays for quashing of criminal complaint No.569 of 2006 entitled M/s Guru Amar Industries v. M/s Uniply Industries Limited and others and order of summoning dated 23.5.2009. The orders of summoning have been passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari at Yamuna Nagar. The cases involve similar facts and therefore, are being dealt with together. For reference to record CRM No. M-7909 of 2009 is being taken up. It has been pleaded that a negotiable instrument was issued by the petitioners in favour of the respondent-complainant. The instrument was dishonoured whereupon notice was issued, as is required under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It has been asserted on behalf of the petitioners that a demand draft under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sent to the complainant-respondent alongwith reply to the notice. Somehow, the demand draft reached the respondent two days later than the statutory period of 15 days. The demand draft was returned by the respondent to the petitioners. The petitioners sent a cheque of the cheque amount at issue in the criminal complaint, which has been encashed by the respondent. It has been contended that in such circumstances, it would be abuse of process of law and process of the Court, if the proceedings are allowed to continue. On a specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant admits that indeed cheque has been received by the respondent and has been encashed. Considering the facts and circumstances as pleaded on behalf of the CRM No.M-7909 of 2009 (O & M) -3- petitioners, I am of the considered view that hyper technicality should not be allowed to come in the process of the Court. There was a delay of two days in receipt of the cheque amount by the respondent, in response to the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The conduct of the petitioners is certainly bonafide and above board. This is also made evident from the fact that after coming to know of the delay in the draft reaching the respondent-complainant, a cheque was sent to the respondent which has already been encashed. It, thus, transpires that the claim of the respondent has been satisfied. In the above circumstances, it cannot be concluded that offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been committed. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, if the proceedings are allowed to continue, it shall cause unnecessary harassment to the petitioners and shall be abuse of the process of law and also the process of the Court. Considering the totality of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, all these three petitions are allowed. Criminal complaint No. 131 of 2006 entitled M/s Shree Ek Onkar Industries v. M/s Uniply Industries Limited and others and order of summoning dated 20.3.2009, and Criminal complaint No.569 of 2006 entitled M/s Guru Amar Industries v. M/s Uniply Industries Limited and others and order of summoning dated 23.5.2009 alongwith subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed. Copy of this order be placed on the files of each connected case. (AJAI LAMBA) JUDGE 21.9.2011 akm