Full Text
HARAYAN STEEL MONGERS P.LTD. & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.S.Sharma, Mr. R.C.Tiwari, Mr. Arun Sharma & Mr. M.S.Mangla, Advocates
Through: Mr. P.K.Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Mr. T.S.Ahuja & Mr. Aman Bhatnagar, Advocates for Respondent
No.2 (ii) CRL.M.C. 1491/2012 HARYANA STEEL MONGERS PVT LTD & ORS Petitioners
Through: Mr. K.S.Sharma, Mr. R.C.Tiwari, Mr. Arun Sharma & Mr. M.S.Mangla, Advocates
Through: Mr. P.K.Mishra, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Mr. T.S.Ahuja & Mr. Aman Bhatnagar, Advocates for Respondent
No.2
22.10.2013 CrI.M.A.No.15820/2013 (Early Hearing) in CrI.M.C.No.910/2012
Crl.M.A.No.15829/2013 (Early Hearing) in Crl.M.C.No.1491/2012
CrlMC.Nos.910 &1491 of2012 Pag^ 2013:DHC:7713
For the reasons stated in the applications, both the applications are allowed and the matter is taken up for hearing today. Date of 4"" February, 2014 stand cancelled.
Crl.M.CNo.910/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.3169/2012 Crl.M.C.No.1491/2012 & Crl.M.A.Nos.5288-89/2012
In the above captioned first petition, quashing ofCriminal Complaint
No.5118/2011 and in the second petition, quashing ofCriminal Complaint
No.5119/2011 both titled ^^Jotinder Steels & Tubes Ltd. v. Haryana Steel
Mongers Pvt. Ltd. " under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is sought on identical grounds and so, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed ofby this common order.
Quashing of aforesaid criminal complaints is sought on the ground that complaint does not fulfill the ingredients of Section 142 (b) of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and is timed barred as the First Demand
Notice was sent on 8^ April, 2011 and the complaint was filed in October, 2011.
During the course of the hearing, it was brought to the notice of this
Court that the Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P. C. has not been framed.
Upon hearing and on perusal ofthe complaints inquestion, impugned summoning orders and the material on record, I find that petitioners instead ofinvoking inherent jurisdiction ofthis Court, they ought to raise the pleas taken herein before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of framing ofNotice. Petitioners are required to do so inview of the dictum of the Apex Court in Krishan Kumar Variar v. Share Shoppe (2010) 12 SCC
Crl.M.C.Nos.910& 1491 of2012 Page 2 A 485, which is as under: -
"4. In our opinion, in such cases where the accused or any other person raises an objection that the trial court has no jurisdiction in the matter, the said person should file an application before the trial court making this averment and giving the relevant facts. Whether a court has jurisdiction to try/entertain a case will, at least in part, depend upon thefacts of the case. Hence, instead of rushing to the higher court against the summoning order, the person concerned should approach the trial court with a suitable application for this purpose and the trial court should after hearing both the sides and recording evidence, if necessary, decide the question of jurisdiction before proceedingfurther with the case.
ORDER
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant, if so advised, may approach the trial court with a suitable application in this connection and, if such an application isfiled, the trial court shall after hearing both the sides and after recording evidence on the question on jurisdiction, shall decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding with the trial." In view of authoritative pronouncement of the Apex Court in Krishan Kumar (supra) as referred to hereinabove, both these petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of while refraining to comment upon merits of these cases, lest it may prejudice either side at trial, with liberty to petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein while relying upon the decisions cited before the trial court at the stage of hearing on the point of framing of Notice and if it is so done, then trial court shall deal with the pleas raised herein by passing a speaking order. CrlM.C.Nos.910 &1491 of2012 Page 3 Needless to say, ifthe trial court proceeds to drop the proceedings qua petitioners, then the Apex Court's decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. (2004) 7 SCC 338 would not stand in the way of trial court to do so. The petitions and the applications are accordingly disposed of. Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith. (SUNIL GAUR) Judge OCTOBER 22, 2013 s CrlM.C.Nos.910 & 1491 of2012 Page 4