Ram Pal vs Mansarandip Singh on 27 November, 2008

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH



                  Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-52708 of 2007
                              Date of Decision: November 27, 2008


Ram Pal
                                                              .....PETITIONER(S)

                               VERSUS


Mansarandip Singh
                                                          .....RESPONDENT(S)

                           .       .             .


CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA


PRESENT: -       Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the
                 petitioner.

                 Mr.   A.S.  Gill,                   Advocate,     for     the
                 respondent.


                               .   .         .

AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)

                 This   petition         prays           for      quashing       of

complaint filed for commission of offence under Section

138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and order of

summoning dated 22.10.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional

Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar.

Essentially the ground pleaded for

quashing of the complaint is that the disputed cheque

amount except Rs.37,194/- had already been paid to the

complainant. The petitioner gave an undertaking that the

sum of Rs.37,194/- would be paid in Court.

Reply on behalf of the respondent has been

filed today in Court which is taken on record.

Learned counsel for the respondent has

pointed that partnership concern was dissolved. In
Crl. Misc. No. M-52708 of 2007 [2]

discharge of legal liability, two cheques were issued;

one for Rs.4,71,520/- and the other for Rs.53,490/-. Both

the cheques were dishonoured which constrained the

respondent on filing the complaint.

Learned counsel for the respondent has

further pointed out that the basis of the petition is the

statement of accounts. The statement of accounts,

however, relates to other payments which were for other

purpose and not in discharge of the liability arising out

of the dissolution of the partnership concern.

I have considered the issue. Since the

respondent has disputed the fact that the cheque amount

other than Rs.37,194/- had been paid, this matter cannot

be decided while exercising inherent powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. Evidence cannot be taken by way of affidavit

and counter affidavit to adjudicate and decide as to

whether cheque amount had been paid as asserted on behalf

of the petitioner or it was in lieu of some other

account/ transaction that the amount was given to the

respondent.

This petition is accordingly disposed of.

The petitioner would be at liberty to take

all the pleas including the pleas taken in this petition,

before the Trial Court. Personal appearance of the

petitioner shall remain excepted, however, on the

conditions to be imposed by the Trial Court.

                                                                   (AJAI LAMBA)
November 27, 2008                                                     JUDGE
avin