Crl. Misc. No. M-45618 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-45618 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: January 27, 2010 Ashok Verma and another .........PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Bhagat Singh ......RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA Present: Mr. D. Hasija, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. AJAI LAMBA, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint case no. 46 dated 14.06.2007 titled Bhagat Singh Vs. Raman Verma and others. The complaint has been filed against three persons namely Raman Verma Proprietor M/s. Style Shoes, Ashok Verma Manager Proprietor M/s. Style Shoes and Satish Verma Manager Accounts of Proprietor M/s. Style Shoes for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “The Act”). Grounds taken in the petition for quashing the complaint are that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the business dealings between the respondent-complainant and Raman Verma. Raman Verma is the nephew of the petitioners and on account of relationship, the petitioners have been implicated. It has further been pleaded that Raman Verma had Crl. Misc. No. M-45618 of 2007 2 signed the cheque and the petitioners had not drawn the cheque nor the account from which the cheque had been issued is held by the petitioners. No other argument has been addressed on behalf of the petitioner. I have gone through the complaint. In para no. 2 of the complaint, the following averment has been made:- “2. That the accused/respondent no. 1 Raman Verma is carrying on his business in the name and style of M/s. Style Shoes alongwith his brothers Shri Ashok Verma, accused no. 2 and Shri Satish Verma, accused No. 3 being manager purchase and manager accounts respectively.” Partnership deed has not been placed on record. At this stage, evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavits so as to disprove the allegations made in the complaint particularly in the face of specific allegations against the petitioners. No ground for interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is made out. Petition dismissed. It is, however, made clear that anything said hereinabove would not be construed as an opinion on the facts of the case. The petitioners would be at liberty to take all the pleas/defence during the course of the trial. It is further directed that appearance of the petitioners shall remain exempt on the conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court. 27.01.2010 (AJAI LAMBA) shivani JUDGE`