CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30741 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: OCTOBER 12, 2011 Mohammad Suleman .....Petitioner VERSUS Jagwant Singh and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Petitioner-Mohammad Suleman has filed two Criminal Misc.No.-M 30741 and 30777 of 2011 (Mohammad Suleman Vs. Jagwant Singh and another) for quashing of complaint CS Nos.77/2 dated 6.7.2010 titled Jagwant Singh Vs. Abdul Ahmed and another and CS No.58/2 dated 1.9.2010 titled Jagwant Singh Vs. Abdul Ahmed and another. Petitioner, in both the petitions, has also prayed for quashing of the summoning order and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30741 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 2 }: The complainant has filed these two complaints against the petitioner as two separate cheque Nos.216962 dated 30.4.2010 for `1,00,000/- and cheque No.216975 dated 30.7.2010 for `1,75,000/- have been dishonoured, when presented for encashment. The petitioner has been summoned in both the complaints and accordingly he seeks quashing of said complaints as well as of the summoning orders. The plea is that the petitioner is not the signatory to the cheques in dispute nor the account holder and, thus, can not be fastened with any criminal liability. In addition, the petitioner also pleads that he is residing outside the jurisdiction of the Court, issuing the summoning order and, thus, the petitioner could have been summoned only after holding enquiry as provided under Section 202 Cr.P.C., which has been held to be mandatory requirement in view of the law laid down by this Court in S.K.Bhowmik Vs. S.K.Arora and another, 2007(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 650. A perusal of the complaint would show that the petitioner and his father are working as a travel agents and had allegedly received a sum of `5,50,000/- from Satnam Singh son of the complainant, Jagwant Singh. They both, however, failed to send the son of the complainant abroad, who then demanded a sum of `,5,50,000/- back from the petitioner as well as his father. As per the allegation in the CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30741 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 3 }: complaint, the petitioner then entered into a compromise with complainant, Satnam Singh in the presence of one Paramjit Singh, resident of Village Ghurala, Tehsil Payal, District Ludhiana and executed an affidavit dated 20.2.2010 promising to return a sum of `3,25,000/- instead of the total amount of `5,50,000/- as was paid. A cheque No.216968 dated 2.12.2009 for a amount of `50,000/- drawn on HDFC Bank in the name of son of the petitioner was issued and the same was honoured. The amount of `2,75,000/-, thus, remained outstanding. In terms of the compromise, the accused person issued two post-dated cheques referred to above and these were dishonoured when presented at Bank of India, Machhiwara Branch, District Ludhiana. The complainant thereafter met the petitioner as well as his son, who assured that these will be honoured but these when presented, were again dishonoured. He has accordingly filed the complaints, leading to summoning of the petitioner. In the background, as noticed above, the petitioner can not plead that he is not responsible for discharging this liability on the ground that he is not signatory to the cheque or the account holder. In fact, it is a clear conspiracy of the petitioner, who in connivance with his son, has deceived innocent citizens of a substantial amount of `5,50,000/-. They both had agreed to return a sum of `,3,25,000/- and out of which liability of `50,000/- has CRIMINAL MISC. NO.-M 30741 OF 2011 (O&M) :{ 4 }: already been discharged. The plea that the petitioner is not responsible being not the signatory can more appropriately be raised before the Trial Court which would appreciate the same on the basis of evidence. It would be seen whether the petitioner can be held liable with the role attributed to him. Certainly no case for quashing the complaint or the summoning order is made out. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel on the authority of law laid down in S.K.Bhowmik 's case (supra). It would be more appropriate for the petitioner to first raise this plea before the Court concerned. At the most, the Magistrate may be required to hold an enquiry before issuing the process. Merely because the enquiry is not held in the facts and circumstances of this case, where the petitioner is not that way an outsider, which will cause any prejudice to him to appear before the Court at Samrala, while he is residing at Malerkotla. At this stage, I am not inclined to go into this part of the submission and leave the liberty with the petitioner to raise this plea before the Trial Court. Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed. October 12, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE