Crl. Misc. No.M-376 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No.M-376 of 2010 (O&M) Col. Amarjit Singh ....Petitioner VERSUS Avtar Singh ....Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No.M-5471 of 2010 (O&M) Daljit Singh Gujral ....Petitioner VERSUS Avtar Singh ....Respondent Decided on : 28-07-2011 CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rajiv Joshi, Advocate for the respondent MAHESH GROVER, J This order will dispose of two Crl.Misc. Petitions bearing nos. M-376 of 2010 and M-5471 of 2010. These petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing of the complaint no. 193/1/8 dated 31.1.2008 preferred by the respondent under the provisions of Section 420 IPC. The respondent filed the aforesaid complaint alleging that the petitioners had mis- represented and induced him to part with amount of Rs.5.60 lakhs on the pretext of getting the daughter of the complainant admitted to a degree Crl. Misc. No.M-376 of 2010 (O&M) 2 course of nursing in United Kingdom. But instead of despatching her for the course, they got her admitted to a diploma course. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in fact the instant complaint is an abuse of process of law as the same has been filed as a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioners against the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. He contends that soon after the notice was issued requiring the respondent to pay the amount against a cheque which has been dishonoured, the respondent instead of doing so, filed the instant complaint. He thus contends that the complaint and all consequential proceedings deserves to be quashed. It is urged before this Court that apart from above facts Courts at Jalandhar had no territorial jurisdiction and the complaint is completely false. It is stated that if the entire allegations are taken to be correct no part of transaction took place at Jalandhar. He denied that any seminar was held at Jalandhar in which such an inducement was made. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that there is a clear stipulation in the admission form that his daughter will be sent for pursuing her degree course in nursing but instead she was despatched to undergo diploma course therefore the mis-representation and consequent extraction of money from the respondent leads to a straight inference that the petitioners have cheated the complainant. I have considered the matter. Indeed there are certain documents on record on the basis of which the petitioners plead that the course to which the daughter of the respondent was sent was a degree course and not a diploma but these documents cannot be accepted straightway as they were subjected to proof. Other contentions also cannot Crl. Misc. No.M-376 of 2010 (O&M) 3 be appreciated in the exercise of the powers of the Court under Section 482. The question of territorial jurisdiction which has been raised herein has also been evaluated and prima facie this Court is of the opinion that if the entire sequence of events narrated in the complaint are to be seen then it does not clearly exclude the jurisdiction of Jalandhar as the complainant has stated in his complaint that there was a seminar in Jalandhar where the inducement and mis-representation was made alluring the respondent to part with Rs.5.60 lakhs in his desire to send his daughter abroad to pursue the degree course. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners then contended that there is no averment that the petitioners were in-charge of the affairs of the company. I am afraid in a complaint of this sort where cheating has been alleged and when there is a direct role attributed to petitioner Daljit Singh of having projected himself as General Manager of the company it is sufficient for the Court to issue a process against the accused person. For the reasons that the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not empowered to look into evidence, the instant petitions are held to be without any merit and are hereby dismissed. However, the petitioners in both the petitions are at liberty to take up all the pleas that have been raised in these petitions before learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage. July 28, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge