Criminal Misc. No.M-20040 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-20040 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.8.2011 Sita Chaudhary ......Petitioner Versus On Line Fin Caps Ltd. and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sameer Sachdev, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Devender Kumar, Advocate for Mr.P.K.Kukreja, Advocate, for the respondent. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint No.1 of 2003 (Annexure P-1) titled On Line Fin Caps vs. Sunil Chaudhary and others under Sections 406/ 420/ 467/ 471/ 195/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) as well as summoning order dated 27.2.l2010 (Annexure P-2) under Sections 405/ 506 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint against the petitioner and others under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 195 and 506 IPC. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that accused Criminal Misc. No.M-20040 of 2010 2 No.1 along with Sandeep Grover, Rochak Midha, Vikas Grover and others had floated the complainant company in the year 1996. At the time of closure of the business in July 2000, the complainant was having assets. Sunil Chaudhary and Poonam Chaudhary induced Sandeep Grover and others in the presence of the complainant to entrust them the equipment/ furniture etc. of the company. The same were handed over to the accused by the complainant on instructions of Sandeep Grover. The said articles were, however, not returned by accused Sunil Chaudhary and Poonam Chaudhary. On 30.7.2002 accused Sunil Chaudhary, Poonam Chaudhary and Brij Bhushan Chaudhary came to the house of Sukhdev and showed him a cheque alleged to have been issued by Sandeep Grover dated 1.7.2002 qua a sum of ` 75,00,000/-. The said cheque was a forged document and was not written or signed by Sandeep Grover. In December, 2002 complainant went to the house of accused along with Madan Lal and requested them to return the bogus cheque and other documents. However, the accused became furious and started abusing Sandeep Grover and Sukhdev and threatened Sukhdev not to interfere in their matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an old lady aged about 80 years and has been falsely involved in this case being mother of Sunil Chaudhary. A criminal complaint had been filed by Sunil Chaudhary under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the Act for short) qua dishonour of cheques issued by Sandeep Grover. However, in the said case, Sandeep Grover was declared a proclaimed offender and Criminal Misc. No.M-20040 of 2010 3 the proceedings in the complaint case have been adjourned sine die by the trial Court vide order dated 5.5.2006 (Annexure P-4). Sunil Chaudhary as well as Sandeep Grover are residing abroad. The present complaint has been filed by Sukhdev at the instigation of Sandeep Grover. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that all the accused, in connivance with each other, had forged the cheque in question and had threatened Sukhdev to misutilise the same. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. Admittedly, both Sunil Grover and Sandeep Chaudhary are residing abroad. In the complaint filed by Sunil Chaudhary against Sandeep Grover under Section 138 of the Act qua dishonour of cheque issued by Sandeep Grover in favour of Sunil Chaudhary for a sum of ` 75,00,000/-, the following order was passed on 5.5.2006 (Annexure P-4) by the trial Court:- “Today, the case was fixed for the presence of the accused by way of proclamation. The serving constable had made a report that on 20.3.2006 he had gone to the address of the accused where he was not found. He had affixed the copy of the proclamation on the house of the accused/ public place and had also affixed the copy of the proclamation on the notice board of this Court. In view of the statement of the serving official it is observed that the proclamation against the accused Sandeep Grover was duly effected on 20.3.2006. Since then the statutory Criminal Misc. No.M-20040 of 2010 4 period of 30 days has already expired. Case called several times since morning. None appeared on behalf of the accused. Neither any information is received. It is already 12.30 pm. Waited sufficiently. No further wait if justified. Hence, the accused is hereby declared as proclaimed offender. Intimation to this effect be sent to the Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh and the warrant of attachment against his property, if any in the District be also sent to the Collector, Chandigarh under Section 83 of Cr.P.C. State of complainant on oath has already been recorded. No useful purpose will be served by adjourning the case further for same purpose. Now the file be consigned to the records as adjourned sine die. However, the complainant shall be at liberty to revive the proceedings as and when the accused is apprehended. Record keeper is directed not to destroy the file.” The complaint in question has been filed by Sukhdev on behalf of the company. From the complaint, it is evident that Sukhdev was not a director of the company. Even otherwise a perusal of the complaint does not reveal that any criminal offence has been committed by the petitioner. The cheque in the sum of ` 75,00,000/- was allegedly shown by accused Sunil chaudhary, Sita Chaudhary and Brij Bhushan Chaudhary to Sukhdev on 30.7.2002. It is only in para 15 of the complaint, it has been mentioned that Sukhdev had gone to the house of the accused and he had been abused by them. The petitioner is an old lady aged about 80 years and it cannot be expected that in the presence of her husband or her Criminal Misc. No.M-20040 of 2010 5 son she might have taken any active part for the alleged occurrence. In fact, it appears that the complaint in question has been filed as a counter blast to the complaint filed by Sunil Chaudhary, son of the petitioner, under Section 138 of the Act against Sandeep Grover qua dishonour of the cheque. In the complaint case filed by Sunil Chaudhary, Sandeep Grover has been declared a proclaimed offender. Sandeep Grover himself has not filed the present complaint and rather the complaint in question has been filed by Sukhdev qua whom no proceedings are pending qua dishonour of cheques issued by Sandeep Grover. It appears that Sandeep Grover himself has gone abroad and has got the present complaint filed through Sukhdev to pressurise Sunil Chaudhary to withdraw the complaint under Section 138 of the Act filed against him. Accused Brij Bhushan Sharma, husband of the petitioner, had died during the pendency of the complaint. 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. Criminal complaint No.1 of 2003 (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 27.2.l2010 (Annexure P-2) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE August 25, 2011 anita