Dismissed

Hasan Ali v. M/S Supreme Automobile Brindabani

Himachal Pradesh HC6 Sept 2022CRMMO/182/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order dismissing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that dismissing frivolous or dishonest petitions under Section 482 CrPC is sufficient to stop abuse of process and did not find the cited grounds as a fit case for interference.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were dismissed.

Hasan Ali Vs M/S Supreme Automobile Brindabani — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA ON THE 6^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022. BEFORE

¶2

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA

¶3

CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION MAIN (ORIGINAL) U/S 482 CRPC NO. 182 OF 2022.

¶4

Between:-

¶5

HASAN ALI, HUSBAND OF NAZIA BIBI, R/O VILLAGE DINAK, P.O. KANAID, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶6

….PETITIONER.

¶7

(BY MR. G.R. PALSRA, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND

¶9

M/S SUPREME AUTOMBILE BRINDABANI, P.O. DUDAR, TEHSIL SADAR, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P. THROUGH ITS PARTNER SH. SANJAY BISHT, S/O SH. DINESH CHAND BISHT, R/O H. NO. 345/1/13, SAULI KHAD, MANDI TOWN, DISTRICT MANDI, H.P.

¶10

….RESPONDENT.

¶11

(BY MR. SURINDER SAKLANI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

…2…

¶13

This petition coming on for admission after notice

¶14

this day, the Court passed the following:-

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

By way of this petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of proceedings in complaint No.168-III/15/14, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Court No.2, Mandi, H.P.

¶17

The quashing of proceedings has been sought on the ground that the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the evidence filed on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit specifically reveal that the consideration for the cheque in question was pleaded to be the balance price of the vehicle purchased by the wife of the accused/petitioner from the complainant. It has also been contended that during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant moved an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., before the learned trial Court in which specific averment was made that cheque in question was issued in consideration of balance price of the repair charges of accidental vehicle No. HP-65A-

¶18

…3…

¶19

As per the petitioner herein, the entire complaint was falsified on the basis of admission made in the application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. and hence deserved to be quashed.

¶20

In exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court has restrictive jurisdiction only to stop the abuse of process of law. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court will not venture into the merits of the case being tried by the learned trial Court. The defence, if any, available to the accused cannot be set up as a plea for quashing of proceedings. Thus, this is not a fit case where interference or indulgence can be shown in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶21

Another ground raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the complaint has been filed on behalf of the firm M/s Supreme Automobile through its partner Shri Sanjay Bisht only. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there are other partners of the complainant firm, who have not been impleaded as parties in the complaint and on this count also complaint needs to be quashed. Such contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner also deserves to be

¶22

…4…

¶23

rejected for the reason that it is not necessary for a firm to sue through all its partners. In case, the firm is duly represented through one of the partners without their being any objection from other partners, it is sufficient compliance for representation. Even otherwise, the petitioner/accused has not been able to show any prejudice caused to him by non impleadment of other partners.

¶24

In view of the above, there is no merit in the instant petition and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶25

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶26

(Satyen Vaidya) Judge

¶27

6^th September, 2022. (jai)

Hasan Ali v. M/S Supreme Automobile Brindabani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasan Ali v. M/S Supreme Automobile Brindabani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bajaj Allianz Gic Vs Shakuntala Devi

Brij Lal Vs R.P. Verma and Another

Sahil @ Chhotu and Ors. Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Sant Ram Vs State of Hp

Swaroop Singh Vs State of Hp

Ram Dayal Vs Subhag Singh