Crl. Misc. No.M-29638 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-29638 of 2010 Date of Decision: 15.10.2010 Dr. Amardeep Singh ....Petitioner Versus Bhushan Aggarwal ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Rakesh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for seeking quashing of complaint nil dated 14.11.2003 and summoning order dated 01.05.2004 in complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act titled as “Bhushan Aggarwal vs. Sigma Diagnostics Ltd.,” pending in the Court of JMIC, Ludhiana and subsequent proceedings taken thereof. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed parity with the case bearing Crl. Misc. No.M-25190 of 2009, in which, notice of motion stands issued. The notice of motion in the said case was issued on the ground that the cheques, in question, were neither signed by the petitioners nor issued on their behalf. They were neither partners nor employees of the said firm, whereas, admittedly, the present petitioner is the Director of the Company, in question. He is not only the Director but he Crl. Misc. No.M-29638 of 2010 2 is also the signatory of the cheque, in question. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the said signatures are disputed, is a matter of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Saroj Kumar Poddar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2007(1) RCR(Crl.) 741 to state that in case, no specific averment or role attributed is specified in the complaint, the said complaint is not maintainable. As stated above, the petitioner is a Director and the signatory of the cheque, in question, as such, the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. Reliance has also been placed on order P-6 dated 27.03.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. No.M-52738 of 2007. The same does not help the petitioner as the same has been quashed only on the ground that there were absolutely no allegations against the petitioner in the entire complaint and she was being enroped only on account of her being vicariously liable for the cheque which was alleged to have been issued by her husband i.e. the present petitioner. There is no merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 15.10.2010 JUDGE gurpreet