Disposed

Nazakat Ali v. M/S Premjee Truck Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Aug 2010CRM-M/23340/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court noted the petitioner's readiness to deposit compounding fee per Damodar S. Prabhu. However, since no application was moved before the trial court, the petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move an application before trial court within one week for consideration of deposit of compounding fee.

Nazakat Ali Vs M/S Premjee Truck Finance Co. Pvt… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Crl.Misc. No.M-23340 of 2010

¶3

Date of decision: 16.8.2010

Nazakat Ali

......Petitioner

Vs.

M/s Premjee Truck Finance Company Pvt. Limited.

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY.

¶10

PRESENT: Mr.Vivek Suri, Advocate, for the petitioner. ****

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No.101 dated 21.2.2003 (Annexure P-1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC and summoning order dated 21.2.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per directions issued by this Court on 15.9.2008, the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.3,28,500/- before the Executing Court and that amount is lying deposited there. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready to pay even compounding fee on the said amount in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Baba Lal H. 2010(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 851.

¶14

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the complaint, summoning order as well as other

¶15

Crl.Misc. No.M-23340 of 2010 [2]

¶16

documents available on the file.

¶17

Earlier a petition bearing No. Crl.Misc.No.M-20574 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner for quashing of complaint, which was dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount in relation to the liability has already been deposited before the Executing Court and liberty was also granted to raise all the pleas before the trial Court. Subsequently, another petition bearing Crl.Misc.No.M8854 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed on 8.7.2009 with the observation that if the petitioner is aggrieved with any of the orders of the Court below, he may avail an appropriate remedy permissible under the law.

¶18

Now the learned counsel for the petitioner has made same prayer by stating that he is ready to deposit the compounding fee as at the time of passing of the earlier orders, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra) was not there and after coming this judgment, the petitioner is ready to deposit the compounding fee as the amount in dispute has already been deposited with the Executing Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show anything that any application has been moved in this regard before the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made this prayer only in this petition that he is ready to deposit the compounding fee with the trial Court but without moving an application before the trial Court. Learned counsel fore the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to file an application before the trial Courte if some directions are issued by this Court for decision of the application in view of the aforesaid judgment of

¶19

Crl.Misc. No.M-23340 of 2010 [3]

¶20

Hon'ble the Supreme Court. In case any application is moved by the petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the same shall be decided by the trial Court in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu's case (supra).

¶21

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶23

August 16, 2010. raghav

Nazakat Ali v. M/S Premjee Truck Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazakat Ali v. M/S Premjee Truck Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju @ Rajiv Vs State of Haryana

Rajender Vs State of Haryana

Sukhjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab etc.

Jassi @ Jasmeet @ Pathar Vs State of Punjab

Soni Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Amarjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.