In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-45214 of 2007 Date of Decision:20-01-2009 Nand Kishore ---Petitioner versus Sita Gupta ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Harsh Kinra,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.N.K.Sanghi, Advocate, for the respondent. SABINA, J.(Oral) Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a prayer to quash the criminal complaint dated 7.12.2005 (Annexure P-3), summoning order dated 8.12.2005 (Annexure P-4), order dated 7.8.2007 (Annexure P-6), notice of accusation dated 7.8.2007 (Annexure P-7) and all subsequent proceedings arising out the complaint. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that petitioner-Nand Kishore demanded Rs. 3,60,000/- from him for personal use. The said amount was paid by the complainant to the petitioner vide five cheques. Petitioner issued a cheque dated 5.9.2005 in favour of the complainant in discharge of his liability. When the said cheque was presented for encashment with the bank, the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 8.9.2005 for insufficient funds. Complainant intimated the petitioner that the cheque, in question, has dishonoured and he was assured by the petitioner that the cheque be again presented for encashment as there Crl. Misc. No. M-45214 of 2007 -2- was sufficient funds in his account. Believing the assurance of the petitioner as correct, complainant again deposited the cheque on 8.10.2005 for encashment with the bank, but the same was dishonoured vide memo dated 11.10.2005 on the ground of “insufficient funds”. Intimation of the same was sent by the banker to the complainant on 14.10.2005. Complainant then issued a legal notice dated 21.10.2005 to the petitioner. Petitioner felt sorry and requested the complainant to present the cheque again as he would arrange for the funds within two days. Believing the promise of the petitioner, the complainant again presented the cheque with the bank on 7.11.2005, but the same was again dishonoured vide memo dated 8.11.2005 which was received by the complainant on 10.11.2005. A legal notice dated 19.11.2005 was sent to the petitioner by registered post. Despite that, petitioner had failed to make the payment. Hence, complaint, Annexure P-3 was filed on 7.12.2005, which was instituted before the trial court on 8.12.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint was liable to be quashed as it was barred by limitation. The cheque, in question, could not be presented again and again. Cause of action could arise once and the same was relatable to the first notice. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the cases of Krishna Exports vs. Raju Dass 2006(2) RCR(Criminal) 672 and T.K.Khungar, Proprietor, M/s T.K.Traders vs. Sanjay Ghai 1993(3) RCR(Criminal) 612. He has also submitted that the summoning order had been passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind on a proforma. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, on the other Crl. Misc. No. M-45214 of 2007 -3- hand, has submitted that the cheque, in question, had been submitted again at the instance of the petitioner himself as the petitioner had assured that he would deposit sufficient funds in his account. The complaint could not be quashed on the ground of limitation as the said fact was to be considered by the trial court as to whether the complaint was within limitation or not. In the present case, on the basis of the complaint (Annexure P-3) filed by the complainant, summoning order was passed on 8.12.2005 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner appeared before the trial court and thereafter, notice of accusation was served on the petitioner on 7.8.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 27938-M of 2005 ( Annexure P-8) vide which summoning order was quashed as it had been passed on a proforma. A perusal of the summoning order reveals that the same has been passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtak after going through oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the complainant. Although some blanks have been typed in the said order, but the same does not lead to the inference that the same has been passed in mechanical manner without application of mind. Moreover, in pursuance of the said order, the petitioner had already appeared before the trial court and has been served with the notice of accusation. The fact whether the present complaint falls within limitation or not, is a disputed question of fact, as the case of the complainant is that he had represented the cheques on the assurance given by the petitioner that he would insure that there were sufficient funds in his account. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not be in the interest of justice to quash the complaint or further proceedings thereto. The petitioner had issued a cheque worth Crl. Misc. No. M-45214 of 2007 -4- Rs. 3,60,000/- in favour of the complainant and the same has been dishonoured. The complainant is taking recourse to law and at this stage, proceedings before the trial court in pursuance of the complaint cannot be quashed. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are based on their own facts and fail to advance the case of the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE January 20, 2009 PARAMJIT