Dismissed

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L) v. Rinki D/O Shri Roopram

Rajasthan HC7 Dec 2023CRLMP/853/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order framing charges in a cheque dishonour case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., arguing the director lacked authority at the time of transaction. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that disputed questions of fact and need for evidence assessment preclude interim interference under Section 482.

What the court decided

AI extract

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L) Vs Rinki… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:38700]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 853/2023

¶4

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.i.p.l), Office Kotgaon, N.h.-991, Near Dadri Toll Booth, District Gautambuddh Nagar (U.P.) 291314 Through Its Director, Sanjay Bhati (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rinki D/o Shri Roopram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of House No. 1/271, Golpura Road, Near Indian Public School, Subhash Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj).

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

07/12/2023

¶13

By way of the instant petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 12.07.2022.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging that the complainantRinki has filed a complaint against the petitioner and thereafter, the court has taken cognizance of the same under Section 138 of NI Act vide its order dated 11.02.2021. Charges against the petitioner were pronounced on 12.07.2022.

¶15

In this background, learned counsel has submitted that the cheque in question is dated 10.01.2020, whereas the petitioner resigned on 18.11.2018, meaning thereby that at the time of the

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JP:38700]

[CRLMP-853/2023]

transaction, Mr. Sanjay Bhati was not acting as a Director. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this court passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1086/2023 decided on 10.10.2023.

¶20

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently prayed for the dismissal of the instant petition, alleging that the same warrants adjudication on disputed questions of fact.

¶21

Heard and considered.

¶22

At the outset, it is made clear that exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is an exception and not the rule and it is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which alone Courts exist. Therefore, whilst exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as enunciated in Ramveer Upadhyay and Anr. vs. State of U.P. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2044 and State of Maharashtra and Ors. vs. Maroti (Criminal Appeal No. 1874 of 2022) .

¶23

Upon a perusal of the record, this Court deems it appropriate to note that the judgment so relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is on an entirely different set of facts, for the reason that in the instant matter, it is noted that a company is an artificial entity, whose head and brain are its Directors and

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JP:38700]

[CRLMP-853/2023]

authorized signatories/employees. Furthermore, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, multiple facts are disputed such as the factum of whether or not the impugned transaction was carried out and the source document i.e. agreement was executed or not. Moreover, many other documents/evidence are required to be examined as well, such as the Books of Accounts and record of the Registrar of Companies. Therefore, considering the fact that the instant case involves disputed questions of facts, warranting assessment/scrutiny of evidence, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not inclined to interfere with the proceedings before the Court below, at this stage.

¶28

In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶29

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶30

JKP/461

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L) v. Rinki D/O Shri Roopram

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L) v. Rinki D/O Shri Roopram

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhaiyalal Meena Son of Ramnath Meena, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jasram @ Ramjas Vs State

Kishan Lal Saini Son of R.C. Saini, Vs State of Rajasthan

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) Vs Dharam Singh Son of Shri Deepchnd

Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited (G.I.P.L.) Vs Smt. Sadhna W/O Shri Manoj Kumar

Mahendra Ram S/O Shri Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan