•n" Petittoners HiGH COURT OF CHHATTi^ARH.ATBil.^PUR Cr.M.P, ,141of 2011 1. D.E.W. Concrete Ties Pvt.Ltd. Through Director Rakesh Srivastava, Fatrdals Road No.15 Jawahar Nagar, Azad Nagar, Jamshedpur, 832110, Jharkhand. RespORdent 2. Ratesh Srivastava, S/o Late S.N.P. Srivastava Ags 57 Years DJrector D.E.W. Concrste Ttes Pvtltd., HiG A-1, Madhav Bagh Coiony Mango, -Jamshedpur, 832110, Jharkhand. R,nn 3. Bharatia R. Srivasteva, W/o Rakesh Srivastava, ^gs 54 Ysars Director D.E.W. Concrete Ties Pvt.Ltd., HiG A-1, Madhav Bagh Cotony Mango, Jamshedpur, 832110, Jharkhand. 4. Rahui Srivastava, S/o Shri Rakesh Snvastaya, Age 33 Years DJrector D.E.W. Concrete Ties Pvt.Ltd., HIO A-1,. Madhav Bagh Colony Mango, Jamshedpur, 8321110, Jharkhand. Versus Shivaiik Powsr and Stssi PvtLtd. A company incorporated under fte C-ompanies Act, 1956, registered ofRce at C-33, 3 Ftoor, Ashoka Miilennium, Ring Road 1, Rajendra Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhaffisgarh. Through Giriraj Singhania, S/o Shri Maluramji Singhania, R/o Saies Tax Cotony, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Petition under Seclion 482 of the Cr.P.C.) (SB: Hon'bie Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) Mr.Abhishekh Ssnha, counsei for the pstitioners. (Passed on 14tn March, 201 1) 'i. By fchis petition under Section 482 of ttie Code of Crirainai Proredurs, 1973 (for short 'Code'), the pstitionere have prayed for quashment of erimina! procseding pendjng before the Chtef Judicia! EWagistrate, Mahasamund in Criminai Compiaint Case No.816/2010 whereby teamed Chief Judiciai Magistrate has taken cognizancs and has issued procsss against ths petitsonsrs. 2. By fiiing documents, copy of compiaint and ottier matsriai, ths petitionsrs have prayed ihat the respondent has fited compiaint under Section 138 of fte Negotebie Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') reiating to dabt and iiability -2-~ which has aireaciy been discharged by the petitioners and the respondent has acknowieciged the same by issuing receipt dated 4.2.2010 reiaiang to spscific Cheque No.278488. 3. i have heard iearned counsei for the petitioners and perussd the petition and documents appended thereto. 4. Learned counsei for the pstitionsrs submits that f'ne present respondent has fiied complaint oniy to harass the petitionsrs and to compel the petitionsra to entsr into istegai agreement for paymsnt of compound interest, otherwise not snWed to rscsivs on account of compeiting thsir pressnce before the Court of Mahasamund from Jharkhand. Leamsd counssi further submits that this is s fit cass tc invoke @$araordinary inherentjurisdiction, 5. The petitioners are untier obiigation to submitthe aforesaid documenlsand their dsfsnce before the triai Court to satisfy ths Court, aithough the trial Court is not under obiigation to consider the documents fiied on behasf of the defence at ths stage of issuance of process, but cppy of document datsd 4.2.2010 filsd by the petitioners appears to bs materiai document for further prosecution of fte cass byths respondent againstthe petitionars. 6. Consequently, instead of passing any order under Section 482 of the Code, tt»e petitioners are tiirectsd to approach before the trial Court through thesr counsei or duiy appointsd attorney and raise the ground befors tts triai Court on She baste of other documents inciuding document of recespt dated 4.2.2010 and if such appiication is filed befors ths trial Court, then ttie trial Court sha!! wtthout compslling attendance of the petitioners shai! hear ths parties and decid®the appiication on its own merit. The petition is dteposed of accordingly. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^ /