lr. Kapil Sankhia, Advocate v. STATE & ORS

1. By virtue of the present petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Complaint No.1632/2001 pending in the Court of J Shri Arvind Bansal, Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court and the summoning order dated 21.01.2004.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is neither the signatory to the cheque nor was he incharge of the conduct of the business of the company in question which is purported to have issued the cheque in question. Learned 2011:DHC:9853 counsel for the petitioner in this regard, however, contends that the petitioner was employed as 'General IManager' and he had ceased to hold such a position in the company in question.

3. On enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner states in the Court that the charges against the petitioner were framed in the year 2007 and order of sumijioning is dated 21.01.2004.

4. A perusal ojthe record shows that the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has also een given to the present petitioner and the case is admittedly pendig before the trial court from last more than seven i years. I

5. This Courthas consistently stated that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. hs to be filed within 90 days or at least within a i reasonable tim^from the date when the cause of action has accrued to the petitione

6. In the inant case, the petitioner has himself stated that the I charges were bmed against him in the year 2007and the present I I petition for quhing of the complaint has been filed in the year 2011. No explanatiofias been given by the petitioner either in the petition or orally as bA/hy the petitioner kept sleeping over his right for a period of aim there is an ir of summonin four years, from the date of giving notice. Therefore, jinate delay and laches in assailing not only the order jt also the charge. 0-

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition.

8. Dismissed as withdrawn.

SEPTEMBER 05, 2011 b V.K. SHALI,J