HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT amasPUR cmuuw. Misc. m’rmou no. 171 or aou PEITITONERB 1. M/s. VINDHYAVASNI, .. . INDUSTRIES LIMXTED, " a Company incorporated under the‘f”? CompanicS’Act, 1956, having its mgistered omce' and works at Plot‘ L Nos. 502-508, Urla Industrial Ama, Raipur—49322l (C.G,) acting in the premses through nag-v authonzed Signatory Shn K Bhaskar Kama Rao Smt Sam] Smghama, W/o Shn‘.” Kap1 Raj Smghama, aged 48 yeam, Dmtor, , Vindhyavasam Industn'cw P Ltd, Plot No run Todl, S/o n an am A Sh H R Tod: aged 58 years, Dlrector, V M/s. Vindhyavasani Indusu‘ics Pvt. Ltd., Plot Nos. 502-508, Urla , Industrial Area, Raipur-493221 (C.G.). Shri Kapi Raj smghania, sic smi Malu Ram Singham'a, aged 5'2 years, Authorized Signatory, M/s. ’ Vindhyavasani Indusu'ies Pvt. f Ltd Plot Nos 502-508 Urla Industnal Ama Rmpur-493221 (CG) ‘ RESPONDEN’I'S 1. HINDUSTAN SCRAP PROCESSING UNIT, through Pmprietor, Mr; Anup‘ Kumar E Agrawal, S/o Not Known, R/o : Pmani Basti‘ Kayastha Para ‘ Ohowk, P.S. Pumm Basti, Tahsilaw r And Distt. Raipur (C.G.)‘ THE STATE OF’CHHATTISGARH " through Station House Omcer: (S.H.O.), Purani Basti Police Station, Raipur (C.G.). o PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF Tm mE OFH \ CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB 'Hon’ble Ir.rT.P.~Shuma,':J.) x Present:- Ms. Fouzia Mina, Advocate for the petih'oners. Respondents not noticed. vt. s W” @ ‘ om ORDER (Phssnd on 28lwl2011) By this peiiu'onv under Scciion 482 of the Code of Cn’minal E ‘Pmceduxe, 1973 (1n short ‘thc Codc’) pctmoners have challcngcd ‘ the legahty and propnety of conunuanoe of cnmmal pmcwdmg ‘ o pcndmg befom the Jud1c1a1 Maglsuam F3131: Class Rmpur m k, \ cummal complamt case No. (1857/ 2008 for the 0&nce pumshable .1 under Secuon 138 ofthe Negouable Insuuments Act, 1881 2.7. 1 Loarned counscl for the peuuoncrs submns that although at the ‘ r stage of issuance of process, Court 1s not mquued to ootmder the documents tiled on behalf of the accused or 1ts whee but as heldwi r v .m case of HARsHENDRAm n. v. mum'm Romy Ann . "L' ’ 0THERS¥lbVy Supteme’ Court Court can look into public éoeument~ hled on behalf of the accused. 3. Leaxned counsel for thepetitioners mettle; submsuthatpresent respondcht ’No. _vl [basiles‘uegl onewdocumeutsdated724/4/r2‘008 m - V .7 - favouriof thepresentpedtionm, wlnch reveal that Manager ohequew ‘ a>1eltating_rto-threel cheques‘including cheque in questiorl‘ haa been ‘ issued to the-respondent No. 1‘ Present respondent No. lo-has submitted onceapplicationwo‘n 26/6/2008 relah'ngitor issuance of r, - certincate 1n zespect of clearance of Manager chequewhw‘h has-been ;.. duly endorsed by HDFC Bank andsame has been liquatcd. one ,> a 26/ 4/2008 4. Leaxned counsel for the pennoners also snbnnts that both the a . documente are pubhc documents and these documents we v su$cientfor quashment of the criminal procecdmgv; . o ‘(201113s0c351 a. . “wag ‘ 5. The documents relating to such 0e; whale by Manager has not been , jawed under estabhsh procedure or under any rule therem m , held m case of HAEHENDRA Km D. (Supu), 1t 1s difficult to V. e hold that rafoxesaJd documents havmg alleged endorsement lsua. public document and are sumcitmt forrqgashmmt 0f, thagniminal 7 proceeding. I do not hnd any ground for quashmentof thecnmmal proceeding. Consequently, peu'tion is liablc to‘he dismisscd and is, 7P hcmby dismissed. LA. No. 01 is also dismissed. , \ Sdl- T.P. Sharma Judge-