Crl. Misc. No.M-20553 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-20553 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.07.2010 Parminderjit Singh ....Petitioner Versus Harkewal Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. Jasbir Rattan, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the complaint No.197 dated 16.07.2008 (P-1), as well as, the summoning Order dated 28.11.2009 (P-2) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri. The allegation, as stated in the complaint, is that the accused No.1-Parminderjit Singh is the partner of M/s Satnam Commission Agents, Anaj Mandi, Dhuri and is running the Commission Agency Shop in New Anaj Mandi, Dhuri. The accused No.1 borrowed an amount of Rs.4,10,615/- from the complainant on 01.05.2007 @ 1% p.m. i.e. the market rate of interest, which the Commission Agents usually pay. The accused No.1 executed a writing in this regard in favour of the complainant on the letter pad of M/s Satnam Commission Agency by receiving the amount and after admitting the contents of the writing to be true and Crl. Misc. No.M-20553 of 2010 2 correct signed the same by Parminderjit Singh and also agreed to return such amount along with interest @ Rs.1% per month within one year or when asked by the complainant. After the execution of the writing, the accused No.1 did not return any amount either towards principal amount or interest to the complainant. The complainant demanded the loan amount along with interest from accused No.1 and the accused No.1 gave assurance to the complainant in the month of May 2008 that he will settle the amount in near future. Thereafter, the matter was settled and in pursuance to the settlement, a cheque bearing No.646419 dated 28.06.2008 was issued under the signatures of accused No.2. Accordingly, the petitioner issued a receipt dated 28.06.2008 in favour of the complainant. However, when the cheque was presented by the complainant in the bank, the same was returned back with remarks “No Such Account”. The complainant-Harkewal Singh appeared as CW-1. His version is corroborated by the statement of Deputy Sarup Singh as CW-2, Bakhshish Singh as CW-3, Satnam Singh as CW-4 and Balwinder Slingh as CW-5. In view of the evidence produced by the complainant, the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, summoned the petitioner and the other co-accused under Section 420 of IPC, whereas, the complaint under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC was dismissed. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the private complaint No.197 dated 16.07.2008 (P-1), as well as, the summoning Order dated 28.11.2009 (P-2) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri. While seeking the quashing of the complaint (P-1) and the summoning Order (P-1), learned counsel for the petitioner argued that ; (a) a Cheque no.646419 of Punjab National Bank from account No.2679 of Rs.3 lacs was allegedly Crl. Misc. No.M-20553 of 2010 3 issued by Hardev Singh, partner of M/s Dhaliwal Commission Agency dated 28.06.2008 on behalf of the petitioner, which is improbable, impracticable and impossible because Hardev Singh is neither partner nor relative, nor friend nor co-villager of petitioner nor this aspect finds mention in cheque or receipts. (b) It was a civil dispute which was resolved with petitioner vide receipt Annexures P-3 & P-4. So far question of Rs.3,00,000/- and cheque No.646419 of PNB Branch, Loha Bazar of Hardev Singh dated 28.06.2008 from his account No.2679 is concerned, respondent No.1 had managed/stolen self cheque of Hardev Singh. (c)The statement of the complainant and his witnesses also establish that the accounts with petitioner was settled and receipt was given. Thus, nothing more was required to be paid by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length. This Court finds no merit in the arguments raised. With respect to the first argument that the petitioner has got nothing to do with the cheque as he has neither signed nor he is the relative, is not a sufficient ground to quash the complaint as the complaint is not under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but under Section 420 IPC. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that a cheque of Rs.3 lacs was issued in pursuance to the payment towards the settled amount between the petitioner and the complainant by accused No.2. The said cheque was issued on behalf of the petitioner by accused No.2 in the presence of the “complainant and the other witnesses”. As such, the Crl. Misc. No.M-20553 of 2010 4 question whether cheque was issued in pursuance to the liability of petitioner and on behalf of the petitioner or not, is a question of evidence. With respect to the second argument that the said cheque was stolen by the complainant, is also a matter of evidence and, therefore, cannot be gone into under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The third argument that the statement of the complainant witnesses, as well as, the receipts P-3 and P-4 show that the dispute already stood settled and thus, there is no occasion for the petitioner to issue cheque of Rs.3 lacs, cannot be sustained in view of the specific averments in the complaint that the said receipt was issued in pursuance to the issuance of the said cheque by the accused person. It was only when the cheque was dishonoured on account of the report that “no such account exists” that the present complaint was lodged. Moreover, the summoning Order has been issued after taking into account the statements of various witnesses. There are specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner, for which, the evidence is required to be led and there is prima-facie case to sufficiently proceed against the petitioner. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be exercised to quash the complaint in the facts of the present case. Thus, the same can be exercised in very extreme exception. No good reason has been stated to enable the Court to quash the complaint at the threshold itself. No ground to quash the complaint No.197 dated 16.07.2008 (P-1) under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as well as, the summoning Order dated 28.11.2009 (P-2) passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhuri, is made out. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 20.07.2010 JUDGE gurpreet