Full Text
CRL.M.C. 3020/2010 & Crl.
M.A. No. 15410/2010
TARUN CHATURVEDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. J(anishk Ahuja, Advocate Mr. S. Imran Alam, Advocate
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.l-
State Mr. Tarun Chaturvedi & Mr. Joginder Singh, Advocates for respondent No.2
CRL.M.C. 162112012 GANESH CHAND CHATURVEDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kanishk Ahuja, Advocate Mr. S. Imran Alam, Advocate
State Mr. Tarun Chaturvedi & Mr. Joginder Singh, Advocates for respondent No.2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR Crl. M.C. No.3020/2010
Crl. M.C. No.1621/2012 / Page 1 2013:DHC:7709
11.11.2013 Mr. Kanishk Ahuja, Advocate, appears and submits that he has no instructions from petitioners in the above captioned two petitions and seeks discharge from this case.
Mr. S. Imran Alam, Advocate, appears on behalf ofpetitioners and submits that he will place his vakalatnama/ Power of Attorney on record during the course ofthe day.
Let it be so done.
In the above captioned two petitions, quashing of CC NO. 5767/3/08 MS Power Track Systems & Associates Vs. Mls Life Business
Projects (P) Ltd. & ors. [in Crl. M.C. No.3020/2010] and CC NO. 547/2008 MIC Power Track Systems & Associates Proprietor Vs. MIS
Life Business Projects (p) Ltd. [in Crl. M.C. No. 547/2008] under
Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits.
Since the quashing of the impugned complaints is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Petitioner - Tarun is the Infrastructure Head of the accused- company whereas petitioner - Ganesh is the Accounts Officer of the accused-company. At the hearing, it was urged that petitioner- Tarun had resigned from the accused-company w.e.f. 28th December, 2007 whereas
Crl. M.C. No.3020j2010 Page 2 yO the cheque in question was issued on 1st July, 2008. Regarding petitioner
- Ganesh it was urged that there are no specific allegations against him and no role has been assigned to him and so, prosecution of petitioners is unwarranted.
To resist these two petitions, learned counsel for respondent relied upon decisions in S. V Muzudmdar & ors. Vs. Gujarat State Fertilizers
Co. Ltd & anr. (2005) 4 SCC 173; Amir Zafar Vs. SAtate & Anr. 134
ORDER
(2006) DLT 398 & Renu Madan Vs. State & Anr. 2009 (1) AD (Delhi) 47 and attention of this Court was drawn to the impugned complaints to point out that there are specific allegations against petitioners and as to whether petitioner- Tarun had resigned prior to the issuance of the cheuqe in question is an aspect which needs to be examined at trial and only after the so called resignation letter is proved by petitioner- Tarun before the trial court. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned complaints, material on record and the decisions cited, I find that the grounds on which quashing of the impugned complaints is sought are required to be decided at trial. Such a view is being taken as petitioners' application under Section 145 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been already allowed by the trial court and petitioners are to examine respondent/complainant on these aspects. Finding no justification to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., both these petitions are disposed of with liberty to petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the time of hearing on Crl. M.C No.3020/2010 Crl. M.C No.1621/2012 Page 3 the point of framing of charge. This petition and application are accordingly disposed of with direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of this case. Trial court record be sent back forthwith.
NOVEMBER 11, 2013 r ~ (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE )v Crl. M.C. No.3020/2010 Page 4