Vardhman Precision Profiles & Tubes Pvt Ltd v. M/S Rama Enterprises

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ......

Criminal Misc. No.M-16040 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:10.5.2016 Vardhman Precision Profiles & Tubes Private Limited .....Petitioner v.

M/s Rama Enterprises .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of complaint No.1313 dated 15.3.2016 (Annexure-P.1) titled "M/s Ram Enterprises Vs. Vardhman Precision Pvt. Ltd." and summoning order dated 11.11.2014 (Annexure-P.2), the complaint now pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad on transfer from New Delhi as the complaint is not maintainable and does not comply with the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as `the NI Act') and the cheque amount is disputed and there is no debt or other liability nor the debt is legally enforceable and complainant has not approached the Court with clean hands and has concealed material particulars and for the issuance of any other appropriate order or directions.

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

Cr. Misc. No.M- 16040 of 2016 [2] only argued on one point that this complaint is not maintainable because the cheque dated 2.11.2012 for `14,06,867/- has been returned on 2.2.2013 from the bank on which it was drawn. He argued that it can be presented to the bank on which it has been drawn within a period of three months only i.e. upto 1.2.2013. Regarding this learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd., v. Jayaswals NECO Ltd., 2001(1) R.C.R. (Cr.) 834. He argued that earlier the time was six months and now the time for presentation of cheque in the bank on which it has been drawn is three months. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

A perusal of the record shows that there is not even a single document to show that the cheque has been presented before the Bank on which it has been drawn on 2.2.2013. It is only the memo which is dated 2.2.2013 showing the dishonouring of the cheque. The cheque presenting date has been written on the reported memos Ex.C.4 which is shown to be 1.2.2013 and the memo is dated 2.2.2013. There is no document on record to show that this cheque has given to the State Bank of India Overseas Brach on 2.2.2013. Therefore, at this stage on this ground this complaint and summoning order cannot be quashed. Further more, this is a finding of fact on which date the cheque went to the State Bank of India from Canara Bank and it is to be proved by the parties by producing the evidence on record.

Therefore, finding no ground at this stage to quash the

Cr. Misc. No.M- 16040 of 2016 [3] complaint and summoning order etc., the present petition is dismissed. May 10, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp*