Rajni Pandey v. The Punjab Heritage And Tourism Promotion Board

CRM-M-19718-2024 -12024:PHHC:054535

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19718-2024 Decided on: 22.04.2024 Rajni .... Petitioner versus Punjab Heritage and Tourism Promotion Board .... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) Instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing of complaint No.NACT/8707/2021 dated 17.11.2021 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as well as summoning order dated 04.01.2022 (Annexure P-2) and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that she has been erroneously summoned by the trial Court, disregarding statutory provisions. It has been submitted that the petitioner was employed as an Accountant in the respondent-Department since the year 2009; during the audit of the accounts of the respondent-Department for the year 2019-20, a discrepancy of Rs.71 lacs was discovered and the respondentDepartment shifted the entire blame on to her. Additionally, it has also been submitted that the petitioner was coerced into signing the cheque in question; after being pressured into signing the cheque, she subsequently retracted her statement regarding the cheque and issued instructions to SONIA BURA 2024.04.23 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-19718-2024 -22024:PHHC:054535 her bank to stop payment, as is evidenced by an email, which has been annexed as Annexure P-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has asserted that in the absence of any legally enforceable debt, the complaint in question (Annexure P-1) and consequent summoning order deserve to be quashed.

3.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the relevant material available on record.

4.

The petitioner has raised contentious questions of fact that fall outside the scope of this Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC. Admittedly, the petitioner has not disputed her signatures on the cheque in question. However, the question of whether the disputed cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability or still further, whether the petitioner was coerced into signing it by the respondent-complainant, are all issues, which would be put to test during trial when evidence is presented by the parties. 5.

As a sequel to the above, this Court would not be inclined to delve into the veracity or otherwise of the allegations levelled by the respondent-complainant at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.

6.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

22.04.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/non-speaking?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2024.04.23 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document