Dismissed

Saurabh Agrawal v. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Nov 2024WP227/88/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order dismissing two writ petitions challenging the dismissal of the revision application in a Section 138 NI Act case, upholding notice signed by the Branch Manager.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions disposed of with dismissal.

What the court decided

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd. — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

1 / 4

2024:CGHC:44183

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 88 of 2021

¶6

1 - Saurabh Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Kumar Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o Kelo Vihar Colony, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,

¶7

---- Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Dhimrapur Road, Tehsil And District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

WP227 No. 113 of 2021

¶12

1 - Saurabh Agrawal S/o Shri Ram Kumar Agrawal Aged About 32 Years R/o Kelo Vihar Colony, Tehsil And District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.,

¶13

---- Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

1 - Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Dhimrapur Road, Tehsil And DistrictRaigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

---- Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner : Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate.

¶18

KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2024.11.13 18:10:55 +0530

¶19

For Respondent

¶20

: Miss Priyanka Rai on behalf of Shri Atanu Ghosh, Advocate.

¶21

Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J

2 / 4

Order On Board

13/11/2024 :

Both the writ petitions are being decided by this common order, as common question of law is involved for adjudication.

¶26

For the purpose of disposal, facts pleaded in WP(227) No.88/2021 are being referred.

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.1.2021 passed by the 5^th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Revision No.76/2020, arising out of order dated 13^th March, 2020 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Raigarh in complaint case No.90/2014, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 263 (g) (provision is wrongly mentioned, as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner) read with Section 251 of the CrPC was dismissed.

¶28

Facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant has filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After appearance of the petitioner/accused, he has filed the subject application stating that the cognizance is bad in law for various reasons. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court, which was affirmed by the revisional Court, as there is no provision for discharge of the accused. The revisional Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra {(2004) 13 SCC 324} has observed that once the plea of the accused is recorded under Section 252 of the CrPC, the

¶29

3 / 4

¶30

procedure contemplated under Chapter XX has to be followed which is to take the trial to its logical conclusion. Hence this petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no authorization letter or the power of attorney deed of the complainant. Even there is no pleading in the complaint about such authorization. Therefore, the trial Court has wrongly dismissed the application and the revisional Court has also failed to exercise proper jurisdiction. Reliance is placed in the matter of A.C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another {(2015) 12 SCC 203}.

¶32

On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant would submit that the complaint has been filed through Branch Manager and the petitioner has wrongly placed cause title of the writ petition and not impleaded the Branch Manager as party/complainant, through which Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited has filed the complaint. She would further submit that the Branch Manager namely, Durga Prasad Dwivedi has filed an affidavit in support of the complaint in which his status of holding the post of Senior Branch Manager in the company and having knowledge of affairs of the company regarding loan transaction with the petitioner has been mentioned. Therefore, the objection raised by the petitioner is not sustainable and the case law relied upon by the petitioner would not attract/apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. She further submits that the Magistrate has no power to discharge when the cognizance is taken in summary trial. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned Magistrate

¶33

4 / 4

¶34

and the revisional Court are just and proper. The present petition has no

¶35

merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition.

¶37

From perusal of the documents, it is explicit that the complaint has been filed by one of the Senior Branch Manager of the complainant company, who is dealing with the loan transaction. The Senior Branch Manager has also filed an affidavit in support of the complaint regarding the knowledge of loan transaction with the petitioner. Therefore, the necessary condition regarding authorization has been satisfied.

¶38

Considering all the aspects of the matter, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Resultantly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

¶40

Sd/(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶41

Barve

Saurabh Agrawal v. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Saurabh Agrawal v. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basant Kumar Tiwari Vs Taiyyab Khokhar

Ksk Mahanadi Power Company Limited Vs Bijulmati Gond

Parmanand Vs Kamla Bai

Saurabh Agrawal Vs Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

Smt. Anita Upadhyay Vs Smt. Vilay Laxmi

Smt. Punai Bai Vs Kartikram