CRM No. M-15985 of 2009 1
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
CRM No. M-15985 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of decision : 1.7.2009
Pavan Kumar Vijay ..... Petitioner
vs
State of Haryana and another ..... Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Mohit Mathur and Mr. Rohit Khanna, Advocates,
for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the complaint filed by
respondent no. 2 against the petitioner under Sections 406, 466, 467, 468, 471 and
420 IPC.
Briefly, the facts are that respondent no. 2 filed a complaint against
the petitioner with the allegations that he had bought 200 shares of M/s Hitech
Drilling Service Limited for which the petitioner had signed transfer-deed.
However, later on he got duplicate issued and got the same dematerialized in his
name. In this process, respondent no. 2 was cheated. After considering the
preliminary statement made by the complainant, the learned court below
summoned the petitioner vide order dated 5.7.2008. In the present petition
quashing of the complaint filed by respondent no. 2 is sought.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the basis of
complaint no offence against the petitioner is made out. Ingredients of the offence
are not made out as there was no direct contact with the petitioner and the
complainant. He further submitted that the learned court below had no jurisdiction
to entertain the complaint as admittedly the complainant was residing at Noida
when the alleged fraud was taken place. The original transfer-deed sought to be
relied upon in the complaint was not placed on record. The incident had taken
place way back in the year 1999 whereas the complaint was filed in the year 2007.
He further submitted that when the public notice was published in the newspaper
regarding loss of shares of the company, none raised any objection to the issue of
new shares in the name of the petitioner. He submitted that the continuance of
proceedings against the petitioner would amount to sheer harassment and abuse of
process of law. The petitioner is practicing as a Company Secretary. The
complaint filed by respondent no. 2 deserves to be quashed.
CRM No. M-15985 of 2009 2
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any
reason to entertain the present petition at this stage as the contentions which are
sought to be raised by the petitioner would require appreciation of documents and
the evidence to be led by the parties which cannot be done in proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, the
same shall not debar the petitioner from raising any of the issue raised in the
present petition at an appropriate stage during trial, as this court is not expressing
any opinion on the merits thereof.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the
petitioner, who is a Company Secretary by profession and some times he has to
move out of station with regard to his work, be exempted from personal
appearance on non-effective hearings before the court below, however, he shall be
represented through his counsel. I find merit in the submissions made. For the
conditions which may be imposed by the learned court below, the personal
appearance of the petitioner on non-effective dates of hearing shall remain
exempted. However, it is made clear that whenever the learned court below will
require his presence, the petitioner will make himself available so that the trial is
not delayed.
1.7.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge