Manoj Darade vs G.M.H.Organics, Panchkula and another

By way of the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought quashing of criminal

complaint No.1402 of 2013, dated 26.02.2013 (Annexure P-1), titled as

"M/s GMH Organics Vs. M/s Frontiago Lifesciences Private Ltd. and

another" under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with

Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the Court of learned

Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panchkula, along with summoning order dated

30.04.2014 (Annexure P-2) and order framing charge dated 14.12.2016

(Annexure P-3).

It is contended that the petitioner being authorized signatory of

M/s Frontiago Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., issued seven cheques in favour of the

respondent. However, the respondent, in order to bring his case under the

jurisdiction at Panchkula, presented two cheques at Axis Bank, Panchkula

Branch, whereas, the remaining five cheques were presented at Axis Bank,

Baddi Branch (Himachal Pradesh). The cheque in the instant case bearing

No.516165 of the Bank of Baroda, A.T. Road Branch, Mumbai, dated

14.10.2012 amounting to Rs.2,96,637/- was presented at Axis Bank, Branch

Panchkula, which was dishonoured with the remarks "Payment stopped by

Drawer". Without there being any evidence on record, the complainant with

a mala fide intention has been stating that all the business dealings took

place at Panckhula in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of

Panckhula Courts. It is further contended that the company consisted of five

Directors at the time of issuance of the cheques in question, however, only

the petitioner has been made a party in the complaint. The complainant also

lodged FIR No.66 dated 24.07.2014, to recover the amount of cheques in

question, at Police Station Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, which stands

quashed vide order dated 08.05.2015, passed by this Court in CRM-M-

43394-2014, titled as "Manoj Darade Vs. State of Haryana".

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

case file.

In the instant case, the accused-petitioner has neither denied his

signatures on the cheque in question, nor the fact that he was authorized

signatory on behalf of accused No.1-Company. In order to prove liability of

the accused, the complainant has furnished invoice regarding alleged

liability of accused against which the cheques in question were issued.

Learned summoning Court has recorded prima facie satisfaction that the

material placed on record is sufficient to take cognizance. The arguments

raised by learned counsel for the petitioner shall be dealt with by learned

trial Court at appropriate stage.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground quash

the impugned complaint or to interfere with the well reasoned orders of

summoning and framing of charge, which are hereby affirmed.

Dismissed.