Petitioner sought quashing of a summoning order in a section 138 case alleging false implication. High Court found no infirmity in trial court orders absent evidence and dismissed petition.
Petition for quashing of complaint and summoning order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No. M-15615 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-15615 of 2011 Date of decision : 23.08.2011
Ashish Gupta
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the petitioner.
RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL)
This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint dated 24.09.2009 (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 07.11.2009 (Annexure P-2) passed by JMIC, Ludhiana issued pursuant thereto.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while summoning the petitioner to face trial, the magistrate did not consider material facts brought to his notice. Even application moved under section 245 Cr.P.C. was dismissed merely by saying that magistrate was not competent to recall the order already passed. According to him, the petitioner has been falsely implicated. The proceeding against him, thus, deserve to be quashed.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
A complaint was lodged by M/s Vikas House Building Company Pvt. Ltd. According to the complaint, the company M/s Vikas house Building Company Pvt. Ltd. had allotted a plot measuring 283.33 sq.yds. to the accused and physical possession of same was handed over to
Criminal Misc. No. M-15615 of 2011
2
him. The accused had issued one cheque bearing no. 473930 dated 25.08.2009 for 20,00,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Rajpura Road, Ludhiana favouring the complainant company. The said cheque was presented for collection but the same was returned vide memo dated 31.08.2009 with the remarks funds insufficient. Thereafter, notice envisaged by the Act was served upon the accused (petitioner). On his failure to pay the amount in question, complaint under section 138 of the Act was instituted. After examining the complaint and preliminary evidence, the Magistrate found sufficient grounds to summon the accused to face trial for commission of offence under the Act. The petitioner, thereafter, moved application under section 245 Cr.P.C. seeking his discharge. The said application was, however, dismissed by detailed order dated 20.11.2010, Annexure P-3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity legal or otherwise with the impugned orders. It appears that the cheque for 20,00,000/- issued by the petitioner was dishonored on presentation by the complainant before the bank. According to memo issued by the bank there were insufficient funds in the account of the accused. He was, thus, summoned by the Magistrate to face trial for commission of offence under section 138 of the Act.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that no ground is made out for interference in inherent jurisdiction of this court. All the contentions raised can only be appreciated after evidence is led before the trial court.
The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE
August 23, 2011 Ajay
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. warrants quashing of the summoning order in a cheque bounce case.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ashish Gupta
State of Punjab and another
Rajan Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
