Criminal Misc. No. M-28488 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Criminal Misc. No. M-28488 of 2008 Date of Decision: 1.7.2009 Sukhwant Singh Kalsi …Petitioner Versus M/s Jain Boutique and Another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed by Sukhwant Singh Kalsi who state himself to be a Script Writer and a resident of B-303, Gaurav Galaxy Phase-II, Mira Road East, Thane, Mumbai, Maharashtra. He has prayed for quashing of criminal complaint (Annexure P1) instituted by respondent on 23.8.2004 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, for prosecution, trial and conviction of the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner has also sought quashing of summoning order (Annexure P2) passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaithal, whereby petitioner has been summoned to stand trial for offence under Section Criminal Misc. No. M-28488 of 2008 2 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A perusal of complaint (Annexure P1) reveal that it was alleged by complainant that accused No.1 M/s Growell Multi Trade India Limited is a multi trade company. Accused No.2 Shakher Suman was its Chairman and Akash Bhardwaj, accused No.1, is Managing Director, whereas petitioner is stated to be Director. Counsel for the petitioner prays for quashing of complaint (Annexure P1) and summoning order (Annexure P2) and has relied upon Annexure P5 whereby five set of complaints vide Criminal Misc. Nos. M-6836, M-7773, M-7774, M-7776 and M-7777 of 2008 were quashed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.9.2008. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that a perusal of order (Annexure P5) passed in above said Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions reveal that allegation in the present complaint are almost similar, and case of petitioner on facts, submissions is identical to the case decided vide Criminal Misc. No. M-7777 of 2008 titled as “Sukhwant Singh Kalsi v. Arun Jain” Inspite of notice of motion issued, nobody has caused appearance on behalf of complainant-respondents. It seem that complainant-respondent No.2 Arun Jain, who was also arrayed as respondent in Annexure P5, has accepted the ratio of law laid by the Co- ordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Nos. M-6836, M-7773, M-7774, M- 7776 and M-7777 of 2008. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to quash the present complaint (Annexure P1) and summoning order (Annexure P2) Criminal Misc. No. M-28488 of 2008 3 in the same terms as in Criminal Misc. Nos. M-6836, M-7773, M-7774, M-7776 and M-7777 of 2008 for the reasons stated therein. However, liberty is granted to complainant-respondent No.2 to pray for recalling of ;the order in case he is able to canvass and persuade this Court that the present case is different on facts and law from the ratio of law laid down in Annexure P5. With the observations made above, the present petition is disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 1, 2009 “DK”