Criminal Misc. No.M-5276 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-5276 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.8.2011 Shikha Sharma ......Petitioner Versus Manoj Kumar .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.H.S.Gill,Sr. Advocate with Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Surender Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of complaint case No.211 dated 20.8.2008 (Annexure P-2) titled Manoj Kumar vs. Shikha Sharma, MD ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short- “ the Act”) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant took a life insurance policy for a sum of Criminal Misc. No.M-5276 of 2009 (O&M) 2 ` 50,000/- on 22.11.2007. On 28.5.2008, complainant applied for cancellation of the policy. A cheuqe in the sum of ` 41,513.02 paise dated 12.6.2008 was issued in favour of the complainant by the company. The complainant, however, represented that he had not received the cheque and consequently, the payment qua the said cheque was stopped to avoid its misuse. On receipt of notice from the complainant, the petitioner-company issued another cheque dated 5.8.2008 in favour of the complainant qua the amount in question and it was delivered through courier on 11.8.2008 . The complainant had, however, filed the complaint in question and on the basis of the same, impugned summoning order (Annexure P-1) was passed. Learned senior counsel has further submitted that even during the pendency of this petition, the amount in question was offered to the respondent but he had refused to accept the same. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the company had not issued the requisite cheque in favour of the complainant. Hence, the criminal proceedings in question were liable to continue. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The complainant-respondent has filed the complaint in question under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioner. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he had taken a life insurance policy from the company and had paid ` 50,000/- by way of first instalment. However, the complainant sought withdrawal of the policy vide letter dated 28.5.2008. The petitioner-company issued a Criminal Misc. No.M-5276 of 2009 (O&M) 3 cheque of ` 41,513.02 paise in favour of the complainant . When the cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the report “payment stopped”. Hence, the complaint was filed by the respondent. Annexure P-3 is the copy of the cheque dated 12.6.2008. The said cheque was dishonoured as payment had been stopped by the drawer. In response to the notice sent by the complainant, Annexure P-4, qua dishonour of cheque, the company sent reply along with cheque dated 5.8.2008 for the amount in question vide Annexure P-5. Photocopy of the cheque dated 5.8.2008 is annexed as Annexure P-6. As per the report of the DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., Annexure P-7, the courier sent by the company was delivered to the complainant. The present dispute does not relate to private individuals. In the present case, the petitioner is a company and had sent the requisite amount to the complainant on account of withdrawal of the policy. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner was liable to be proceeded qua offence under Section 138 of the Act. During the pendency of this petition also, the petitioner has offered the cheque amount to the complainant but the complainant has refused to accept the same. It appears that the complainant merely wants to harass the petitioner- company. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be nothing but an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint case No.211 dated 20.8.2008 (Annexure P-2) titled Manoj Kumar vs. Criminal Misc. No.M-5276 of 2009 (O&M) 4 Shikha Sharma, MD ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd. under Section 138 of the Act and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 25, 2011 anita