In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.4316 of 2009 and Criminal Misc.No.M-615 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:29.1.2009 Chander Singh Sehrawat .....Petitioner v. Sanjay Goel .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Nand Lal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. M. No.4316 of 2009: A copy of the summoning order dated 5.3.2005 (Annexure-P.2) attached with the criminal miscellaneous application is taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. Cr. Misc.No.M-615 of 2009: This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.-for short) has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint dated 29.10.2003 (Annexure-P.1) filed by the complainant- respondent-Sanjay Goel and the summoning order dated 5.3.2005 (Annexure-P.2) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat vide which the petitioner has been summoned. A prayer is also made for Cr. Misc. No.4316 of 2009 and Cr. Misc.-M No.615 of 2009 [2] quashing the subsequent proceedings in pursuance of the summoning order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Court at Sonepat has no jurisdiction to try the complaint (Annexure P-1) as the cheque in question is stated to have been removed from the Methodist Church in India and the said Church is situated at Delhi. Therefore, the Court at Delhi alone has the jurisdiction to try the complaint and the complaint filed at Sonepat is not maintainable. Besides, the complainant- respondent has no locus standi to file the complaint (Annexure-P.1). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the complaint is dated 29.10.2003 and the summoning order has been passed on 5.3.2005. The present petition seeking quashing of the complaint and the summoning order has been filed in this Court on 8.1.2009. Therefore, the petition is highly belated. It is not stated in the petition as to what is the stage of the case before the learned trial Court after the passing of the summoning order. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has stated that the charge has not been framed in the case. The question regarding the Court at Sonepat having no jurisdiction to try the case has been raised by the petitioner on the strength of the averments as made in para 5 of the complaint (Annexure-P.1). It has been averred therein as follows:- “5. That the accused is a very mischievous type of person removed the said cheque with mala fide intention from the possession of Methodist Church in India, with the motive to take revenge from the complainant and other partners, who asked him to withdraw his partnership from M/s Chander Singh Cr. Misc. No.4316 of 2009 and Cr. Misc.-M No.615 of 2009 [3] Sehrawat & Associates as mentioned above.” From the above, it is contended that the Methodist Church in India is situated at Delhi, therefore, the cheque has been removed from Delhi. However, a reading of the above para shows that the cheque has been removed from the possession of the Methodist Church in India and it is not stated as to whether the cheque has been removed from Delhi or elsewhere. It is not in dispute that four acres of land were purchased by M/s Chander Singh Sehrawat & Associates from the Methodist Church in India. Besides, the allegations in the complaint are that the petitioner put his own name on cheque No.622503 dated 27.12.2002 drawn on the State Bank of India, Narela (Delhi) and despite being asked to return the cheque he has refused to do so. Therefore, the question regarding jurisdiction of the Court trying the case is not to be determined at this stage in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The question regarding locus standi of the respondent to file the complaint (Annexure-P.1) is also not to be gone into at this stage. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the cheque was misplaced from the custody of the Methodist Church in India at Delhi, therefore, the complaint regarding the loss of alleged cheque could have been filed by the Methodist Church in India or its representative. In this regard, it may be noticed that criminal law can be set in motion by the respondent as well especially when the cheque issued by the respondent it has been alleged has been tampered with by putting the name of the petitioner. Therefore, at this stage it cannot be said that the respondent has no locus standi to lodge the complaint. The learned Magistrate has passed the order dated 5.3.2005 Cr. Misc. No.4316 of 2009 and Cr. Misc.-M No.615 of 2009 [4] (Annexure-P.2) whereby the petitioner has been summoned after the respondent had examined himself as CW-1. He specifically stated that cheque No.622503 for an amount of Rs.63,93,800/- was handed over to the Methodist Church in India being represented by one Yaqub Massie in anticipation of the price of 4 acres of land. The sale deed was executed and on demand the four cheques that had been handed over to the Methodist Church in India were to be given back by aforesaid Yakub Massie to the complainant and his associates. However, out of the four cheques, one cheque No.622503 was missing. The complainant (respondent) made a search for the said cheque and ultimately a DDR dated 14.7.2003 was got recorded against the accused at the police station but no action was taken by the Police. The learned Magistrate also noticed that it is specifically stated by the complainant that it was given in writing by Yakub Massie that he had received full and final payment of the land and cheque No.622503 was now of no use. The complainant also wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Narela (Delhi) to stop payment of the aforesaid misplaced cheque. It has been deposed by the complainant that the cheque was mischievously taken by the accused and he filled his name on the said cheque, thereby he forged the same and presented it to the Bank and when it was not encashed, he gave legal notice. He also threatened the complainant, by visiting his house, with dire consequences. On perusal of the report under Section 202 Cr.P.C. it was observed that the same prima facie goes to show that a case under Sections 406, 467, 468 and 420 IPC was made out against the accused. Accordingly, the petitioner was summoned. The reasonings recorded by the learned Magistrate for summoning the petitioner on the basis of prima facie view is just and reasonable and warrants no Cr. Misc. No.4316 of 2009 and Cr. Misc.-M No.615 of 2009 [5] interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 29, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*