IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-41934 of 2007 Date of decision:- 28.11.2011 Rajinder Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present:- None for the petitioner Mr. M.K.Sajan, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Today this case has been called twice but none has turned up on behalf of the petitioner. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Shri Rajinder Kumar-petitioner praying for quashing of the complaint dated 08.05.2000 (Annexure P-2) under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the summoning order dated 24.09.2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur (Annexure P-3) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is the contention of the petitioner that he is not a Director of the firm and he has been summoned as one of the Directors of the firm. His assertion is that the cheque has not been signed by him but by some one by the name of Rajinder Kumar and therefore, he cannot be held liable for an offence under Section 138 of the Act. In the reply filed to the petition by respondent No.1-Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'PUNSUP'), the complainant, it is the specific stand of the respondent- complainant that the petitioner is the Director of the firm and he has affixed his signatures on the cheque in question which reveals that the petitioner was the Director of the firm. On perusal of the record, it has came to light that none has been putting appearance on behalf of the petitioner on 4.08.2009 and thereafter on various dates when the case was taken up for hearing. The case was adjourned due to absence of the counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the record. There are specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner that he being the Director of the firm had signed the cheque which fact although is disputed by the petitioner stating that he was neither the Director of the firm nor has he signed the cheque in question but these contrary statements of the parties cannot be gone into by the Court while considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. These are matters to be decided by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties and therefore, exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would not called for. In view of the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have signed the cheque in question and also that disputed questions of facts are involved in the present case, the present petition stands dismissed. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 28.11.2011 JUDGE adhikari