Kamal Kishore v. Haryana Financial Corporation

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

Criminal Misc. No.M-22563 of 2016 .....

Date of decision:13.7.2016 Kamal Kishore .....Petitioner v.

Haryana Financial Corporation .....Respondent ....

Present:

Mr. Rajesh K. Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. .....

Inderjit Singh, J.

This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of criminal complaint No.2508 of 2014 dated 9.10.2014 (Annexure-P.1) filed for the offences under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as `NI Act') read with Section 420 IPC and the summoning order dated 12.2.2015 (AnnexureP.2) passed by the Court of ld. Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, as there is no legally enforceable liability of the petitioner for any amount due, if any, of the respondent-Corporation against M/s Balaji Enterprises, whose sole proprietor is the wife of the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

The petitioner has been summoned vide order dated 12.2.2015 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon in this complaint case filed by Haryana Financial Corporation against Kamal Kishore under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the NI Act read with Section 420 IPC. No revision petition has been filed against the summoning order and this Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.08 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Cr. Misc. No.M-22563 of 2016 [2] petition for quashing has been filed. A perusal of the complaint shows that accused-Kamal Kishore stood guarantor on behalf of the firm/Tannu Sharma his wife and issued the cheque in question. It is stated in the complaint that the accused in order to partly satisfy the liability of the firm M/s Balaji Enterprises had issued an account payee cheque bearing No.697595 dated 31.8.2014 for `90,09,048/- in favour of the complainant and signed by the accused. The said cheque on presentation was dishonoured and returned with the remarks "funds insufficient". Legal notice was also given. Learned counsel for the present petitioner argued that there is no legally enforceable liability of the petitioner for any amount due against M/s Balaji Enterprises, whose sole proprietor is the wife of the petitioner.

This fact whether there was any liability due against the firm M/s Balaji Enterprises towards the complainant or whether the present accused stood guarantor for the repayment of the loan and issued the cheque for repayment of the loan are the findings of fact which are to be given by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence of the parties. At this stage, there is nothing on the record from where it can be held that the filing of this complaint against the present petitioner amounts to miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of law.

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition the same is dismissed.

July 13, 2016.

(Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Harpal Singh Parmar 2016.08.08 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh