AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Kandpal, J.—By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Case No. 1439 of 2005, Firoz Khan v. Sahadat Ali and Anr., relating to offence punishable u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Gangnahar, Roorkee, District Haridwar pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent No. 3 filed a complaint Case No. 72 of 2005 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee, District Haridwar against the applicant and her father for dishonour of cheque No. 024620 for a sum of Rs. 2,20,000/-, which was signed by the applicant and her father. When the same was presented before the bankers, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rampur Road, the same was dishonored on the ground of in sufficient fund, on this the complainant got served notice dated 06.06.2005 to the applicant the co-accused and when the amount was not paid, criminal complaint was filed on 16.07.2005. On said compliant after recording statement of the complainant u/s 200 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the Magistrate vide its order dated 18.07.2005 summoned the accused including the petitioner to face the trial, in respect of offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the applicant has preferred this petition for quashing the proceedings under the aforesaid case.
Heard Sri Sri Rajkumar, Advocate, holding brief of Sri K.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Adhikari, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondent No. 1 and perused the record.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque in question was signed by the father of the applicant - Anjum and not by her, as such she could not be held criminally liable for an act committed by her father. In reply to this learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 3 submitted that the petitioner has also signed the cheque and in order to support his version he has invited my attention towards annexure No. 3, which was photocopy of the cheque in question.
Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the papers and records, this Court is of the view that in the present case there are disputed questions of fact involve which can not be examined by this Court in its jurisdiction u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, it reveals from the perusal of annexure 3 to the petition, it is clear that the cheque was also signed by the accused/applicant. The points raised in the petition are the disputed question of facts and it can be judged by the trial court where the evidence are yet to be collected. This Court while exercising the jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not supposed to act as a trial judge. The averments made in the petition are the disputed question of fact, which can be assessed and judged by the trial court. I am not supposed to embark upon an enquiry with regard to the credibility of the evidence at this stage. Any judgment rendered by me would amount to premature judgment where the evidence is still incomplete and hazy. The applicant shall have an opportunity to place the evidence in their defence before the trial court where the matter shall be finally adjudicated after considering the entire evidence. I do not find any merit in this case at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Consequently, the stay order dated 29.10.2005 stands vacated.