IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO. No. 113 of 2010. Date of Decision: 22.6.2010. _______________________________________________ Anil Kumar Kaushik. ….Appellant. Versus. Dr.Chain Singh. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant. : Mr.Lalit Kumar Jha, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). This petition has been preferred by the petitioner herein seeking direction from this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of quashing criminal complaint No. 34-III/2010 pending before the Magistrate, First Class, Palampur, Kangra, H.P. and the summoning order dated 2.2.2010 and order dated 26.5.2010 issuing bailable warrants against the petitioner for his appearance. Without entering into the details of the entire factual matrix, quashing is sought by the petitioner on two grounds which were urged before this Court. Firstly that the Court at Palampur had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Learned counsel has submitted with vehemence Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 that the mandatory provisions of Sections 200 and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not been complied with and that this constitutes an abuse of the process of law as also using the provisions of the criminal law for harassing the petitioner who is an innocent person. The second ground urged by the learned counsel is that the purported consideration for the negotiable instrument subject matter of the complaint is prima facie in violation of Section 23(f) of the Indian Contract Act. The consideration itself being void, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for any offence(s). Learned counsel made reference to illustration (f) appended to Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and submits that according to the complainant, the cheque was paid for securing admission of his son in post graduation course(s). The consideration is illegal for the reason that admission is governed by rules/regulations and the payment of consideration for admission is illegal. No prosecution can be launched for that which is ex facie illegal and the courts cannot be used for enforcing patent illegalities. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in Virender Singh Vs. Laxmi Narain and another, 135 (2006) DLT 273. At this stage, I am not inclined to go into these questions for the reason that it will be open to the petitioner to show before the learned Magistrate that the court lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and cannot continue with the case. It will also be open to the petitioner to 3 show at the appropriate stage that no charge can be framed against the petitioner for the reason that the very basis of the transaction as alleged by the petitioner is illegal and defeats the provision of law and in this situation there can be no prosecution. On the third point urged that the petitioner is not a resident of Himachal Pradesh finds it difficulty to come from Palampur to Agra on every date of hearing, the learned court shall consider the request of the petitioner for exemption from appearance in accordance with law. This petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 22, 2010(R)