High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Shri Arun Mittal vs M/S Professional Packers on 3 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shri Arun Mittal vs M/S Professional Packers on 3 March, 2009
 CRM No. M-6016 of 2009                     1



    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
              HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

                               CRM No.6016 of 2009 (O&M)
                               Date of decision: 03.03.2009

Shri Arun Mittal                                    ...Petitioner

                             Versus

M/s Professional Packers                            ...Respondent


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA

Present:    Mr. G.P. Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajan Gupta, J.

This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of

proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide

order dated 6th September, 2008, a charge has been framed against him

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. He has assailed

the said order on the ground that the petitioner is not incharge of day to

day discharge of the Company and is not responsible for any liability of

the Company. According to the counsel, the company has not been

impleaded as a party and thus, the proceedings under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instrument Act against the petitioner deserve to be quashed.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given

careful thought to the facts of the case. From a perusal of the impugned

order, it is evident that a charge has been framed against the petitioner
CRM No. M-6016 of 2009 2

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. All the pleas taken

by the petitioner before this Court are in fact required to be raised

during the course of trial. No ground has been shown in the petition for

quashing of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instrument Act in inherent jurisdiction of this Court. On a

pointed query put by this court whether the petitioner had signed the

cheque as authorised signatory, reply of the counsel is in affirmative.

Thus, it is evident that the entire petition contains no ground,

whatsoever, for quashing of the proceedings. The petition is totally

frivolous in nature.

Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed with

Rs.5000/- as costs.

(RAJAN GUPTA)
JUDGE
March 03, 2009
‘rajpal’