Crl. Misc. No. M-19835 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19835 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.7.2010 Satpal Singh ...Petitioner Versus M/s Sharnathi Leasing and Finance Pvt. Ltd. & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking quashing of complaint bearing No.754-2 dated 24th May, 2004 (Annexure P-1) and orders dated 20.1.2005 and 23.4.2010 (Annexures P-2 and P-3), passed pursuant thereto by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Abohar, whereby his application for dismissal of the complaint was rejected. Brief factual background of the case is that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was instituted by respondent No.1 (complainant) against the petitioner for dishonour of cheque No.857783 dated 5th March, 2004 for an amount of Rs.2,34,600/- drawn on State Bank of India, Abohar. It was alleged by the complainant that a commercial loan of Rs.1,90,000/- was sanctioned to the petitioner on 18th February, 1999. As per terms of the loan, a sum of Rs.4,03,900/- was to be repaid by the petitioner within a period of 60 Crl. Misc. No. M-19835 of 2010 2 months to the complainant/respondent No.1. It is in lieu of this that the cheque in question was issued, but the same was dishonoured on presentation, vide bank memo dated 6th March, 2004 (C-7). Resultantly, the instant complaint was lodged by the company. After recording preliminary evidence, the petitioner was summoned to face trial by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate Abohar, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, vide order dated 20th January, 2005, Annexure P-2. After considerable elapse of time, the petitioner moved an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that debt was time barred and the same was not recoverable, thus, applicant had no liability to pay the same. This application was resisted by respondent No.1 on the ground that the same was frivolous and vexatious. It had been preferred only with a view to delay the trial. The application for dismissal of the complaint was, thus, rejected by the court below on 23rd April, 2010 vide order, Annexure P-3. Aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant petition before this court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It is evident that cheque bearing No.857783 dated 5th March, 2004 for an amount of Rs.2,34,600/- was dishonoured on presentation by the complainant to its banker namely, Punjab National Bank, Abohar. The complainant, thus, instituted the instant complaint on 24th May, 2004. Pursuant to the complaint, the Magistrate recorded the preliminary evidence. After considering the statement of the Crl. Misc. No. M-19835 of 2010 3 complainant and documents Ex.C1 to C11, he decided to summon accused Satpal Singh (petitioner herein) to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It appears that after considerable time thereafter, the accused moved the instant application for dismissal of the complaint on various grounds such as debt was time barred, no case was made out against the petitioner and debt was not recoverable. This application was dismissed by the court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any legal infirmity with the impugned order. All the pleas taken by the petitioner in his application for dismissal of the complaint appear to be in the nature of defence. The same can be gone into by the trial court at the stage of trial. Needless to observe that such pleas can be decided only on the basis of evidence. This apart, it appears that the petitioner was summoned to face trial in 2005, vide order dated 20.1.2005. The instant application appears to have been moved after a considerable delay thereafter. The order dismissing the application is dated 23rd April, 2010. It appears that the petitioner is interested in delaying the proceedings before the trial court. The application moved by the petitioner, thus, appears to be an attempt towards vexation. The petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 14.7.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No