Crl. Misc. No. M-12461 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12461 of 2009 Date of decision: 6.5.2009 Krishan Partap Singh ….. Petitioner Versus HMT Ltd., Pinjore ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Gaganinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. **** S.S. SARON, J. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“CrPC” – for short) has been filed seeking quashing of complaint (Annexure P4) titled M/s HMT Ltd. Pinjore v. S.B. Automobiles and others pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panchkula and the summoning order dated 26.3.2004 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, besides, all other consequential and subsequent proceedings. The respondent M/s HMT Ltd., Pinjore has filed a complaint (Annexure P4) against the SB Automobiles, Civil Lines, Partapgarh (UP) through its partner. The petitioner is accused No.2 in the said complaint (Annexure P4). It has been alleged in the complaint that the accused in discharge of their partial liability in respect of the debit amount standing in their account with the complainant had issued an account payee cheque dated 19.1.2004 for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- drawn on Bank of Baroda, Jaunpur Branch, Jaunpur (UP) in favour of the complainant with the assurance that the same would be encashed on presentation. The cheque was dishonoured with the remarks “funds insufficient” by a memo dated 5.2.2004 issued Crl. Misc. No. M-12461 of 2009 -2- by the Punjab National Bank, Pinjore. The complainant served a legal notice dated 1.3.2004 under registered A.D and postal certificate. Despite notice having been received, the amount of cheque has not been paid. Accordingly, the complaint was filed. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula vide order dated 26.3.2004 (Annexure P5) has summoned the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The quashing of the complaint (Annexure P4) and the summoning order (Annexure P5) as also consequential proceedings as already noticed are sought in this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had regular transactions with the respondent-complainant and therefore, proceedings against the petitioner are not maintainable. It is submitted that in response to the legal notice, reply dated 21.2.2004 (Annexure P3) was sent in which it was mentioned that the cheque dated 19.1.2004 for an amount of Rs.7.5 lacs had not been given to the complainant. In fact the account of the firm S.B. Automobiles had been closed with the Bank of Baroda due to the dissolution of the firm. The complainant was requested to return all the blank cheques. In any case, it is submitted that the S.B. Automobiles had in fact issued a blank cheque as security in the year 2001 and the said cheque has now been misused. A reference is made to the Bank statement (Annexure P6) to contend that all the other cheques in the series of the said account were encashed. However, the said cheque which was given towards security has now been misused. It is also contended that the petitioner had sent his resignation from the complainant-Company on 25.10.2001 which was not accepted by it. A mention in this regard, it is submitted, is there in the letter dated 18/30.8.2004 (Annexure P1) from HMT Limited – respondent. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petition is highly belated. The summoning order (Annexure P5) was issued on 26.3.2004 and no reason has been given for coming to the Court after an inordinate delay of 5 years. It has not even been shown as to at what stage the case of Crl. Misc. No. M-12461 of 2009 -3- the complainant before the trial Court is. As regards the contentions raised herein, the same are in the nature of evidence which are liable to be proved before the learned trial Court in accordance with law by leading evidence. This Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC is not to go into the veracity of facts and evidence so as to ascertain whether an offence that has been alleged has been made out or not. For that is the domain and function of the trial Court. The question that the petitioner had regular transactions with the complainant is also required to be proved by leading evidence. Even the account book of the Bank (Annexure P6) on which reliance is placed is to be proved before the trial Court in accordance with the mode provided for proving the same. The fact that a blank cheque was issued as security in the year 2001 is also a matter of evidence. The question whether resignation was submitted by petitioner from the complainant- Company and the effect of its non-acceptance and its consequential effect on the complaint is also a matter which is to be taken into consideration after evidence has been led. In the circumstances, no ground is made out for interfering in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 CrPC. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 6, 2009 amit