High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Singh And Another vs Gagandeep Singh on 4 February, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Singh And Another vs Gagandeep Singh on 4 February, 2009
Crl.Misc.No.M-40964 of 2005                                             1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH.


                                       Crl.Misc.No.M-40964 of 2005
                                       Date of Decision: 4.2.2009


Narinder Singh and another                                .....Petitioners

                                Vs.

Gagandeep Singh                                           ....Respondent

                                ....
CORAM :      HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

                                ****

Present : Mr. B.K. Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Navjeet Singh, Advocate for the respondent.

….

RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure is for quashing of a complaint filed under Section 138

of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the summoning order dated

15.6.2005 passed thereon.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1’s bank

statement clearly establishes that prior to the filing of the complaint, he has

paid the amount of the offending cheque and as the ingredients of an

offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not made

out, the complaint and the summoning order be quashed. It is further

submitted that during the pendency of this petition and pursuant to orders

passed therein, petitioner no.1 has deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- before

the trial Court. It is, therefore, prayed that in view of the aforementioned
Crl.Misc.No.M-40964 of 2005 2

facts, the present petition be allowed and the summoning order and the

complaint be quashed.

Counsel for the respondent, however, submits that whether

petitioner no.1 has or has not paid any amount, prior to the filing of the

complaint, is a plea to be raised by the petitioner, in his defence before the

trial Court. The respondent, however, emphatically denies that any amount

was received before the filing of a complaint. It is, therefore, prayed that

as argument addressed by counsel for petitioner no.1 relates to his defence,

the present petition be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the

complaint, as also the impugned summoning order.

The petitioner’s assertion that prior to the filing of the

complaint, he has paid the entire amount referred to in the cheque, falls

within the domain of his defence and should, therefore, be raised and

adjudicated before the trial Court. The deposit of Rs.10,000/- by petitioner

no.1, pursuant to orders passed by this Court, would be taken into

consideration by the trial Court, while deciding the complaint. As

argument raised by counsel for the petitioners relates to his defence, no

ground is made out to quash the complaint and the summoning order in the

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. Dismissed.

However, the personal appearance of petitioner no.1, who

resides outside the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court namely; at

Bakaro (Jharkhand) shall remain exempted, subject to his filing an

affidavit/undertaking to appear before the trial Court, as and when so

directed and incorporating an averment therein that he has no objection, if
Crl.Misc.No.M-40964 of 2005 3

evidence is recorded in his absence.

Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on

9.3.2009.

4.2.2009                                    (RAJIVE BHALLA)
GS                                               JUDGE