Crl. Misc. No.M-400 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-400 of 2009 Date of Decision: July 14, 2010 Kishori Lal …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Mann, Sr. DAG, Haryana -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the quashing of criminal proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of a cheque which is alleged to have been issued by the petitioner to the said Company to discharge the liability. Counsel for the petitioner has narrated the sequence of events to the effect that the petitioner was a guarantor of a jeep which was taken by Crl. Misc. No.M-400 of 2009 [2] his wife on hire-purchase agreement from complainant- respondent No.2. The said jeep was stolen on October 26, 2004. When claim was raised, the insurance company had required a No Objection Certificate to be obtained from respondent No.2. The NOC had been issued by respondent No.2 and all the claims of respondent No.2 stood settled on re-payment of the money by the petitioner and his wife. It is contended that the petitioner being a guarantor having already discharged his liability; the cheques issued as security lying with respondent No.2 having been misused and the cheque in dispute having not been issued to discharge the liability; the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act including the summoning order are liable to be quashed. I have heard counsel for the petitioner at length and gone through all the documents and I am of the opinion that prima facie the petitioner has got a sound defence but inability is expressed to appreciate the disputed question of fact at this stage. The facts and the defence raised by the petitioner can be fairly appreciated by the trial Court by giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to put his defence to the complainant as well as by producing his defence evidence. In the interest of justice, this petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioner moves an application for exemption from personal appearance before the trial Court, the trial Court will exempt his personal appearance subject to any condition imposed upon the petitioner with a further direction that proceedings will be concluded within Crl. Misc. No.M-400 of 2009 [3] a period of six months after the receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that while exempting the personal appearance of the petitioner, it will be open to the trial Court to record the evidence in presence of counsel for the petitioner as per provisions of Section 273 Cr.P.C. July 14, 2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE