Quashed

M/S Anc Clothing & Ors. v. M/S Ansh International & Anor.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2012CRM-M/33331/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the complaint, summoning order, and subsequent proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that since the petitioners paid the dishonoured cheque amount plus the requisite 10% costs, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned complaint, orders dated 18.05.2006 and 09.06.2008, and all subsequent proceedings were quashed; petitioners-accused discharged.

M/S Anc Clothing & Ors. Vs M/S Ansh International… — Cheque Dishonour | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Misc.No.M-33331 of 2008

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-33331 of 2008(O&M)

¶5

Date of Decision:26.04.2012

¶6

M/s ANC Clothing and others ......Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s Ansh International and another .....Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶10

Present: Mr.Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Jaivir Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr.Roopak Bansal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.2-State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J.(oral)

¶15

Tersernessly, the facts, which require to be noticed, relevant for the limited purpose of deciding the sole controversy, involved in the instant petition and emanating from the record are that, in partial discharge of their liability, the petitioners-accused M/s ANC Clothing, its partners and authorized signatory, have issued a cheque(Annexure P-1) dated 25.12.2005 for a total sum of Rs.28,672/-, in favour of the complainant-M/s Ansh International, respondent No.1(for brevity “the complainant”). The cheque was presented in the bank, but it was returned unpaid with the endorsement “payment stopped by drawer”. The petitionersaccused were stated to have even not repaid the amount, despite legal notice. Consequently, the complainant filed a criminal complaint(Annexure P-4) against the petitioners-accused, under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(hereinafter to be referred as “the N.I.Act”).

¶16

Taking cognizance of the complaint, the trial Court summoned the

¶17

¶18

Criminal Misc.No.M-33331 of 2008

¶19

petitioners-accused, to face the trial under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, by way of impugned summoning order dated 18.05.2006(Annexure P-5).

¶20

During the course of pendency of the complaint, the Company of the petitioners-accused made the payment of impugned amount of cheque to the complainant, by means of Certificate(Annexure P-6) and moved an application (Annexure P-7), to drop the criminal proceedings, which was dismissed by the trial Court, by virtue of impugned order dated 09.06.2008(Annexure P-8).

¶21

The petitioners-accused did not feel satisfied and preferred the present petition, to quash the impugned complaint(Annexure P-4) and orders (Annexures P-5 and P-8), invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶22

As is evident from the record that, the petitioners-accused have, inter alia, challenged the impugned complaint(Annexure P-4) and the orders(Annexures P-5 and P-8) on variety of grounds in general and on account of payment of impugned cheque amount to the complainant in particular. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners-accused have issued the impugned cheque(Annexure P-1) for a total sum of Rs.28,672/-, which was dishonoured. It has been specifically pleaded in para 2(h) of the petition that the petitioners-accused have already paid the impugned cheque amount to the complainant, vide pay order bearing No.AMC 723297 drawn at Syndicate Bank, Green Park Extensions, Delhi and the said amount was credited in the account of the complainant, by way of Certificate dated 22.01.2007(Annexure P-6). The factum of payment has been duly admitted by the complainant in the reply.

¶23

Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioners-accused have already paid the amount, which was credited in the

¶24

¶25

Criminal Misc.No.M-33331 of 2008

¶26

account of the complainant, so, the impugned complaint(Annexure P-4) and orders (Annexures P-5 and P-8) are liable to be quashed, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Damodar S.Prabhu Versus Sayed

¶27

Babalal H., 2010(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 851: 2010(5) SCC 663, has considerable force.

¶28

At the very outset, learned counsel for the complainant has fairly acknowledged the legal proposition, but urged that since the petitioners-accused have made the payment of impugned cheque amount at the subsequent stage, even then they are required to pay 10% more of the cheque amount by way of costs.

¶29

Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioners has paid Rs.2867/- being the 10% of the impugned amount, which was accepted, as costs, by the learned counsel for the complainant. Therefore, once it stands proved on record that the petitioners-accused have already paid the impugned cheque amount along with 10% as costs, then continuation of the impugned complaint(Annexure P-4), orders(Annexures P-5 and P-8) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, would amount to deep misuse/abuse of process of the Court and deserve to be quashed, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶30

Damodar S.Prabhu's case(supra).

¶31

In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant petition is accepted. Consequently, the impugned complaint(Annexure P-4), orders(Annexures P-5 and P-8) and all other subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are hereby quashed and the petitioners-accused are accordingly discharged from the indicated complaint case in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶32

April 26, 2012 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

¶33

Whether to be referred to reporter? Yes/No

M/S Anc Clothing & Ors. v. M/S Ansh International & Anor.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Anc Clothing & Ors. v. M/S Ansh International & Anor.

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

M/S Devta Steel Rolling Mills Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh and Ors.

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh

Tarlochan Singh Vs Bachittar Singh

Dharminder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ishwar Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Radha Sami Transport Co. Jind Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.