Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CR.MA/6899/2009 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL
MISC.APPLICATION No. 6899 of
2009
=========================================================
HYNOUP
FOOD AND OIL INDUSTRIES LTD & 2 - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUAJRAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
ABHAYKUMAR P SHAH for
Applicant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR KP RAWAL, APP for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 08/02/2010
ORAL
ORDER
The
petitioners are the original accused. They seek quashing of complaint
Annexure-A filed by respondent No.2 herein. Complaint pertains to
dishonor of cheque issued by the petitioners in favour of respondent
No.2. It is the case of the petitioners that these cheques were
issued as part of compromise between the parties during the pendency
of cheque bouncing cases and civil suits filed by the complainant. My
attention is drawn to communication Annexure-C wherein it is stated
that series of cheques have been issued by the petitioners as part of
the compromise upon payment of all cheques. Complainant was to
withdraw the civil suits.
It
is the case of petitioners that Criminal Case No. 257/1999 is still
pending during which by virtue of compromise, cheques came to be
issued. Second complaint for the same sets of liabilities would not
be maintainable. My attention was drawn to decision in case of Lalit
Kumar Sharma and another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
reported in (2008) Supreme Court Cases 638.
Though
served no one appears for the complainant. I have heard learned
advocate for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
From
the impugned complaint itself, it can be seen that previous complaint
of cheque bouncing is still pending. Complainant has stated in the
complaint, that criminal case No. 257/1999 is admitted which is still
pending. In view of the admitted fact that said cheques having been
issued by way of compromise during pendency of the first complaint of
cheque bouncing and in view of decision of Apex Court in case of
Lalit Kumar Sharma and another(supra),
fresh complaint would not be maintainable. In case of Lalit
Kumar Sharma and another(supra),
the Apex Court in similar circumstances, held and observed as under :
17.
Thus the second cheque was issued by Manish Arora for the purpose of
arriving at a settlement. The said cheque was not issued in discharge
of the debt or liability of the Company for which the appellants
were said to be the Directors. There was only one transaction between
Shri Ashis Narula, Shri Manish Arora, Directors of the Company and
the complaint. They have already been punished. Thus, the question of
entertaining the second complaint did not arise. It was, in our
opinion, wholly misconceived. The appeal, therefore, in our opinion,
must be allowed. It is directed accordingly. The respondent shall
bear the cost of the appellants. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs
25,000/-.
In
view of the admitted factual background and settled legal position,
the petition is required to be allowed. Complaint at Annexure-A is
quashed.
Petition
is disposed of. Rule made absolute accordingly.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(raghu)
Top