iii Pst'tjonsr Accused No.2 Compicinant Accussd No.l Present;- COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BIL4SPIJR Cr.M.P.No. 107 of 2009 Smt.Prabha Jain, W/o K-M-Jain, Aged about 52 vears. ft/o M/s Recon Steei and Power Pvt.Ltd., 176 Aamd'i, Mandir Wrtpri. Duro. Versus 1. &H!p Singhn, S/o V/ibhuti Singha, Aaed about 42 vears. Aft/s B.S.Troders. AM6 1/2009 Industr'ial Estate-i-iousing Board, Bhilni, Oistrict Durg (C6) 2- Arv'md Jain, S/o K.M..Jain, Aged about 30 years. M/s Recon Steet and Power Pvt.Ltd. 176, Mamdi Na9ar, VVard, beepak Nagar, burg, &istt.burg (Cff) 3. Stcte of Chhattisgcrh, Through &istr-ict AAaoistrate District Qurg (Cff) (Petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P-C-) (SB= Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharmo, -J.) .rs. Fouzia Mirza wlth AA,s Fa'roh Minhaj, counse! for' the petitioner'. Mr.binesh RK. Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.l. Mr.S.K.Tiwari, counsei for respondent No.2. M>'-4sh!sh Supta, Panel lawyer for respondent No-3/State. ORAL ORDER ffssssd sn 29th Oetsber, 2Q09) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashmsnt of the order dated 5-12.2008 passed by the Sscond Additional Sessions Judge, t)urg, in Revisio" Case No.119/2008, cffirming th.e order dated 15.4.2008 passed by the Judicia! Magistrate First Ciass, Durg, in Crin'ina! Compiaint No.342/2008 whereby ieamed Judicia! Magistrate First C!ass hois taken cognizance against the petitioner and respondent No-2 for the offence punishab'e under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instr'uments .4ct, 1881. ""'!;,...,..:,,.. 1 l'%isg^ •1< ^- 2- 2. QuQ'sh'TieMt is proy^/j on thg; Qr'oupd thot without infplscdlng '(^ls ^jur'stic Derson ?isineiy, AA/s Recon St^sl Qnd Power Pyt.L-td. cor?tpl<3.int is w!ot iiftnj^tQl^obie cind sscondly. r^SDonds?lt No.l has wronciSv ?2rld SIJeQclliv pleaded in the complaint that the petitioner a"d respondent No.2 are husbdnd and wife, but they ar'e not husband a"d wife. The pe+itiorier' is the mo+her of respondent No-2. 3. Leflsrned counsel for respondent No.2 suppor'ted the clain' of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3/St"te opposes the petition. 5. Accordmg to copy of the compiaint, +he petitioner ond respondent No.2 are probably the persons responsible for affairs of M/s ftecon S+ee! a"d Power Pvt.Ltd. Co. and the &irector" of the Compony. Cheque has bee" issuec! by tiie petitioner and respondent No.2 on behalf of the comp&ny which was dishonored. 6. Fs'om perusal of the complaint, it appears that the person r^sponsible for pcytnertt of che^ue 's the Ji'r'istic person ni2tiRe!y M/s Rsco" Stssi <>rld po'yyer' Pvt.Ltd. Co. o!oliG with Dir^cto'fs. Uplsss the coilnDlnin/xnt ir^Qlsad th®comD<srlv QS a Qart^. order takir1Q conn)yrtnce GQoinst the D€tition%r* a^ci resQOMdsr'it No-2 is bcid in !(1iuy. 'Hiouoh rnistQk® irl the ccs?TlDiQ!rit r>$!<2ti*>i" to re!<xtion. of 14ie Detitioner* arici resDondsnt No-2 is serious in nQture. but i?*Qy be bona fide. Both ths Cour'ts be!c?w haye fsot consicierw/j the fact 'Hnot who is o. per^?n substQitiGily responsib!s for pnvl^ent of the amount "f cheque i.e. ju»'istic person and thereby coi7"T"tted il!i£Qa!its/. The oyder* imDunril£d is not sustc'iic'ble under 'tftff !aw and iiabis to bs sst Q^id^- 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the ordsr ifnpugned is hereby set aside. The cc.se. js remitted back to the tria! Court for' making fur+her inquiry in dccor'dcsnce wi+h Ssction 398 of the Code of CrirnmQ' Procedure, 1973. ftespondent No.l is directed to make suitable cme!'>drne"t r'elating to relation of the petitioner' aid re^ondent No.2. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge