AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard.
By means of this petition, moved u/s 482 of Cr.P.C, the petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 359 of 2005, Ken Wood Colour Lab v. Glob Overseas and Ors. relating to offence punishable u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, P.S Jwalapur, pending in the court of Ist Additional Civil Judge(Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner and counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant No. 2 filed criminal complaint before the trial court with the allegation that complainant firm was approached by the accused firm Glob Overseas Ltd, run by P.K. Ghosh and the petitioner Dolly Ghosh for sale of colour photo machine. In connection with said purchase in terms of agreement the complainant made payment of Rs. 24 lacs to the accused firm. However, colour photo machine was not supplied to the complainant firm. As such complainant demanded back the amount paid by it to the accused firm. It is alleged in the criminal complaint that accused No. 3 Dolly Ghosh (present petitioner) gave four cheques each amounting two lacs (in all eight lacs) to the complainant which were signed by the accused No. 2 (P.K. Ghosh). When the cheque No. 170274 dated 14.04.2005 was presented before the bankers, ICICI bank Haridwar, the same was dishonored on the ground on insufficiency of funds on this the complainant got served notice dated 02.08.2005 on all the accused including the petitioner and when the amount was not paid, criminal complaint was filed on 06.09.2005. 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 12.09.2005 summoned the accused including the petitioner to face the trial, in respect of offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque in question was signed by her husband P.K. Ghosh and not by her as such she could not be held criminally liable for an act committed by her husband. In reply to this learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 submitted that the petitioner was also manager and person responsible in the business of the firm Globe Overseas, and she handed over the cheque in question signed by her husband to the complainant, as such she can not escape the criminal liability.
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 facts and circumstances of the case in view of provision contained in Section 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the petitioner will have to show before the trial court that her case is covered under the proviso of u/s 141 of aforesaid Act, for which, she would be required to adduce the evidence.
For the reasons as discussed above, without expressing any opinion as to final merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., is liable to be dismissed. The same is dismissed. Interim order dated 07.03.2006 stand automatically vacated.