Crl. Misc. No. M-5558 of 2009 [ 1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 4.9.2009 (1) Criminal Misc. No. M-5558 of 2009 (O&M) Parveen Berry and another .. Petitioners v. M/s Grasim Bhiwani Textile Ltd. and others .. Respondents (2) Criminal Misc. No. M-5479 of 2009 (O&M) Parveen Berry and another .. Petitioners v. M/s Grasim Bhiwani Textile Ltd. and others .. Respondents (3) Criminal Misc. No. M-5645 of 2009 (O&M) Parveen Berry and another .. Petitioners v. M/s Grasim Bhiwani Textile Ltd. and others .. Respondents (4) Criminal Misc. No. M-5686 of 2009 (O&M) Parveen Berry and another .. Petitioners v. M/s Grasim Bhiwani Textile Ltd. and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Joginder Sharma, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. .. Crl. Misc. No. M-5558 of 2009 [ 2] Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of the above mentioned four petitions, as parties to the litigation are same and the prayer for quashing of different complaints have been made in the petitions on the same legal grounds. The facts have been extracted from Crl. Misc. No. M-5558 of 2009. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1 filed a complaint against the petitioners and respondents No. 2 and 3 for dishonour of various cheques, which were issued for discharge of liability. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as a whole seller dealer of the fabric manufactured by respondent No. 1-complainant to whom the material was supplied. Petitioner No. 1 was the sole proprietor of respondent No. 2-firm, which was later on taken over by respondent No. 3. Petitioner No. 2 was also arrayed as an accused in view of letter written by petitioner No. 1 to respondent-complainant intimating that on account of some income-tax problems, he had transferred the ownership of the firm to respondent No. 3 and even petitioner No. 2 would also be liable for payment of the amount due to respondent No. 1-complainant, as both of them are looking after the business of respondent No. 2-firm. The learned Magistrate finding prima facie case directed summoning of the accused vide order dated 25.11.2008. It is at this stage that the petitioners approached this court seeking quashing of the complaint qua them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no allegations in the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 regarding the petitioners being liable to pay the dues of respondent No. 1-complainant. Even as per material placed on record by the complainant, it is respondent No. 3 -Varun Thakur, who was the sole proprietor of the firm. The cheques had also been issued by him to respondent No. 2 under his signatures. Petitioner No. 1 was sole proprietor of the firm which much prior to the issuance of the cheques by respondent No. 3 and petitioner No. 2 has nothing to do with the firm at all as he is neither the partner nor employee or even signatory to the cheques issued. Accordingly, the complaint filed by respondent No. 1 against the petitioners deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that the petition filed by the petitioners is totally misconceived. A petition challenging the summoning order is not maintainable before this Court once the learned Magistrate had found prima facie merit in the case of the complainant for summoning the accused. If the petitioners were aggrieved against the same, they could have filed revision before the learned Sessions Court. At this stage, the Crl. Misc. No. M-5558 of 2009 [ 3] prayer for quashing of the complaint should not be entertained. As far as the issue on merits is concerned, it was submitted that at the time when respondent No. 2- firm had taken dealership, petitioner No. 1 was the sole proprietor. He had entered into an agreement with the complainant. The material was supplied at the time when he was the sole proprietor. Just with a view to avoid the liability without there being any intimation or consent to the complainant, he had transferred the ownership of the firm to petitioner No. 1. In terms of the communication of petitioner No. 1, both petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 3 were the persons liable for the conduct of the business and accordingly, they are liable to be prosecuted. Merely because the petitioners have not signed the cheques in favour of the complainant will not absolve them from the liability, as all the persons who are incharge of the affairs of the firm were liable to be prosecuted. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The fact is that petitioner No. 1 was the sole proprietor of the firm at the time when the dealership was taken by respondent No. 2-firm of the fabric manufactured by respondent No. 1-complainant and he had signed the agreement. Regarding change of ownership of the firm, the complainant is that no intimation was given to it. The liabilities, which were settled by the firm, pertained to the period when petitioner No. 1 was the sole proprietor of the firm. Later on, it was claimed by him that due to certain income-tax problems, he had entrusted the affairs of the business to petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 3. As far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is no material on record connecting him with the affairs of respondent No. 2- firm. The cheques, which have been dishonoured, have been signed by respondent No. 3 on behalf of respondent No. 2- firm. As far as allegations in the complaint are concerned, it is mentioned that all the accused are jointly liable and are the persons responsible. As regards their different capacities, the same can very well be gone into by the court in the evidence to be led. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, as far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, I do not find any reason to quash the complaint or the consequential proceedings, he admittedly being the sole proprietor of the firm, who had initially entered into an agreement with the complainant, though the cheques may have been issued under the signatures of respondent No. 3. However, as far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, there is nothing on record to connect him with the activities of respondent No. 2- firm, as the only case set up is that earlier petitioner No. 1 was the sole proprietor of the firm and later on it was respondent Crl. Misc. No. M-5558 of 2009 [ 4] No. 3. For the reasons stated above, the petition qua petitioner No. 1- Parveen Berry is dismissed. As far as petitioner No. 2- Ramesh Rajput is concerned, the impugned complaint and all consequential proceedings against him are quashed. The petitions stand disposed of accordingly. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 4.9.2009 mk