IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CRMMO No.19 of 2011. Date of decision March 01, 2011 __________________________________________________________ Mrs. Rupinder Kaur ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P & anr. ….Respondents ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr.N.K.Thakur,Advocate . For the Respondent No.1 : Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl.A.G. with Ms.Subh Mahajan,Dy.A.G. _______________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J(oral). The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the complaint may be quashed and that the order passed by the Magistrate rejecting the application of the petitioiner herein under Sections 45 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act be quashed and set-aside. 2. It is undisuted before me that the case is listed for recording evidence of the defendant. So far as the question of quashing the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, this is not the appropriate stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint is otherwise not maintainable as there is no averment against the petitioner that she was in any manner responsible for issuing the cheques 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 or that she was Incharge of the business or looking after the business affairs etc. For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a number of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The second point urged by the learned counsel that the Company is a necessary party and since it was not impleaded, the complaint has to be dismissed without proceeding any further. For this purpose, learned counsel refers to two decisions of the Supreme Court. All these points can be urged before the learned Trial Court. The settled law is that these points constitute necessary jurisdictional facts. It is obvious and if it is found that the present case is covered by the precedent of the Supreme Court, it goes without saying that no conviction can follow. 4. It will be open to the petitioner to urge these points before the learned Trial Court at the time of arguments of the case after the evidence is complete. 5. The third point urged by the leaned counsel for the petitioner is that the rejection of the application by the learned Court below is illegal. The defence set up that this instrument ( cheque) was never signed by the petitioner. The learned Trial Court, relied upon the decision of this court in Cr.MMO No. 15 of 206 wherein again prayer was made for quashing of the complaint. This Court, while disposing of the petition, holds :- “It is admitted fact that the cheque in question Ext. C-2 is signed by the accused-petitioner which was issed in the name of the M/s Nipso Poly Fabriks Limited.” 6. In these circumstances, the application was dismissed. I do not intend to discuss this aspect of the case in these proceedings. This petition is accordingly disposed of with the observations and directions, as 3 issued above. It will be open to the petitioiner herein to urge all points raised herein before the learned Trial Court. No order as to costs. Copy Dasti. March 1st, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud) (krt) Judge.