Criminal Misc. No. M-7697 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-7697 of 2009 Date of Decision: 19.3.2009 M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited and Others …Petitioners Versus Smt. Santosh Devi …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-7698 of 2009 M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited and Others …Petitioners Versus Smt. Santosh Devi …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. S.C. Sibbal, Senior Advocate with Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioners. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, two petitions i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M- 7697 of 2009 and M-7698 of 2009, both titled as “M/s Ferrous Infrastructure Private Limited and Others v. Smt. Santosh Devi” will be decided together. The petitions have been preferred by M/s Ferrous Criminal Misc. No. M-7697 of 2009 2 Infrastructure Private Limited, and its Directors Surinder Seth and Amit Seth. They have been summoned at the instance of Santosh Devi in two complaints filed by her in the Court of the Area Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. Criminal Misc. No. M-7697 of 2009 pertains to issuance of a cheque for Rs.1,80,180/- which had bounced, whereas Criminal Misc. No. M-7698 of 2009 is qua the cheque of Rs.3,00,000/- which had also bounced. Santosh Devi, for dishonour of both the cheques, had filed these two complaints. Common grievance of the petitioners in both the petitions is that both the cheques were drawn for date 30.11.2008 and the complainant had committed the forgery and had made the date 30.8.2008 and had presented the cheques, therefore, the cheques could not be encashed. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon statement of Bank (Annexure P5) to show that on the day when the cheques were presented, opening balance and closing balance was sufficient and the cheques were bound to be encashed. But the cheques were returned with remarks “referred to the issuer”. Counsel has also relied upon Annexure P4 certificate issued by the Banker The Bank of Rajasthan Limited where they have stated that remark “referred to the issuer” means that there was alteration of the date on both the cheques. On the observation made by the Court whether date was forged or not is a subject matter of evidence and the Court may require help of Experts to reach at this conclusion, therefore, this Court cannot Criminal Misc. No. M-7697 of 2009 3 come to the rescue of petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the petitioners at this stage, has submitted that petitioner No.1-company is a company of repute and they do not want to linger on the litigation which may bring bad name to the company. Therefore, they are ready to pay the amount of the cheque. Counsel further submits that payment of the cheque should not prejudice their defence which they can take before the trial Court. Counsel further states that petitioners be not deprived of the liberty to take the complainant to task for forging the cheques by lawful means. Since the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the amount of cheque, the present petition is disposed off with the direction that in case amounts of cheques is deposited in the trial Court the same shall be kept in Fixed Deposit Receipt by the trial Court subject to the final outcome of the case. However, the trial Court shall make every endeavour to send the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Center or Permanent Lok Adalat for amicable resolution of the dispute. The petitioner-company will be at liberty to represent through a legal representative before Mediation & Conciliation Center or Permanent Lok Adalat. Counsel for the petitioners prays that personal appearance of the Directors of the petitioner-company be exempted before the trial Court. I find merit in the submission made by counsel for the petitioners. Accordingly, personal appearance of the Directors of the petitioner-company is exempted before the trial Court subject to filing an Criminal Misc. No. M-7697 of 2009 4 undertaking that they shall cause appearance as and when required and the evidence recorded in their absence but in the presence of their counsel shall be binding upon them. Trial Court may also specify any other condition in the undertaking to be furnished by the Directors of the petitioner-company. On the furnishing of undertaking, the personal appearance of Directors of the petitioner-company shall stand exempted. With the observations made above, both the petitions are disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge March 19, 2009 “DK”