CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2015) 02 DEL CK 0389

Madhurima Chandra and Others vs Ansun Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Delhi High Court · Decided on 3 February 2015 · Citation: (2015) 2 BC 237

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sunil Gaur, J
RESULT
Disposed off
CASE NUMBER
Criminal M.C. No. 663 of 2014 and Crl. M.A. No. 2217 of 2014 with Crl M.C. No. 673 of 2014 and Crl. M.A. No. 2237 of 2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

4 paragraphs · 403 words

Sunil Gaur, J.—In above-captioned two petitions, quashing of summoning order in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits. Since the quashing of the impugned summoning order is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgment.

2.

At the hearing, learned Counsel for petitioner had relied upon decisions in Urmila Kumari Vs. Rukmani Devi and Others, (2013) 3 AD 133 : (2013) 2 BC 644 , Manish Bhaskar v. State and Anr. 2009 (4) JCC (NI) 233 , Geeta Srivastava Vs. Bhanu Sharma, (2003) CriLJ 801 : (2002) 101 DLT 321 : (2003) 66 DRJ 108 : (2003) 42 SCL 172 , T.N. Devi Vs. A.C. Haridas and Another, (2005) 1 BC 273 : (2004) CriLJ 4710 : (2004) 3 ILR (Ker) 636 : (2004) 2 KLJ 575 : (2004) 3 KLT 355 , Srikant Somani and Others Vs. Sharad Gupta and Another, (2005) 5 AD 300 : (2006) 3 BC 300 : (2006) 131 CompCas 189 : (2005) 119 DLT 616 and Girish Saxena Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain and Others, (2007) 3 BC 363 : (2007) 141 DLT 8 to submit that liability is only on the drawer, who had issued the cheque, and since petitioner had not issued the cheque, therefore, summoning of petitioner as an accused is abuse of process of the Court.

3.

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has placed on record copy of trial Court''s order of 14th July, 2011, Notice framed under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. and the statement of petitioner recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. by trial Court and had submitted that even the defence evidence has been closed and the matter is now coming up before trial Court on 9th February, 2015.

4.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the material on record and the decisions, I find that since the matter has now reached at the final stage before trial Court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial Court at the stage of final arguments. In view of aforesaid, the above captioned two petitions and the applications are disposed of while not commenting upon merits, lest it may prejudice either side before trial Court.