HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PEITITONERS CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION N0. 183 OF 2011 1. M/s. VINDHYAVASNI INDUSTRIES LIMITED, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its regisfered office and works at Plot Nos. 502-508, Uria Industrial Area, Raipur-493221 (C.G.) acting in the premises through its authorized signatory Shri K. Bhaskar Kanta Rao. 2. Smt. Saroj Singhania, W/o Shri Kapi Raj Singhania, aged 48 years, Director, M/s. Vindhyavasani Industries Pvt. Ltd, Plot Nos. 502- 508, Urla Indust'rial Area, Raipur- 493221 (C.G.). 3. Amn Todi, S/o ShriHari Ram Todi, aged 58 years, Director, M/s; Vindhyavasani Industries Pvt. Ltd., Plot Nos. 502-508, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur-493221 (C.G.). 4. Shri Kapi Raj Singhania, S/o Shri Malu Rain Singhania, aged 52 years, Authorized Signatory, M/s. Vindhyavasani Industries Pvt. Ltd., PlotNos. 502-508, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur-493221 (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS HINDUSTAN SCRAP PROCESSING UNIT, through Proprietor, Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, S/o Not Known, R/o Purani Basti, Kayastha Para Chowk, P.S. Purani Basti, Tahsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.). THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, through, Station House Officer, (S.H.O.), Purani Basti Police Station, Raipur (C.G.). PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Qamarul Aziz, P.L. for fhe State/respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1 not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passedon 01/04/2011) .^^.j-.^-^ac,¥^» »N, -z By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (in short 'the Code>) petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of continuance of crimihal proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in criminal complaint case No. 1856/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 138 . of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although at the stage of issuance of process, Court is not required to consider the documents flled on behalf of the accused or its defence but as held in case of HARSHENDRA KUMAR D. V. REBATILATA KOLEY AND OTHERS1 by Supreme Court Court can look into public document filed on behalf of the accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners furfher submits that present respondent No. l.has issued one document dated 24/4/2008 in favour of the present petitioners, which reveal that Manager cheque relating to three cheques including cheque in question has been issued to the respondent No. 1. Present respondent No. 1 has submitted one application on 26/6/2008 relating to issuance of certificate in respect of clearance of Manager cheque which has been duly endorsed by HDFC Bank and same has been liquatedpn 26/4/2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that both the documents are public documents and these docuraents are sufficient for quashment ofthe criminal proceeding. On the other hand learned counsel for the State/respondent No.2 opposed the petition. The documents relating to such certificate by Manager has not been issued under establish procedure or under any rule therefore, as held in (20Il)3SCC35l ""%. ^-"-^. '^ rff it^..-^<a>B8. ^ 1 ^ • ^ s .» s%%5®^-^/ . ? ^3. 7. case of HARSHENDRA. KUMAR D. (SUPRA), it is difficult to hold that aforesaid documents having alleged endorsement is a public docuraent and are sufficient for quashment of the criminal proceeding. I do not find any ground for quashment of the criminal proceeding. Consequently, petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. I.A. No. 01 is also dismissed. —'- T.P.Sharma Judge