High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Harbhajan Singh v. M/s. Steel Authority of India - CRM-24720-m-2000  RD-P&H 3251 (17 May 2006)
Criminal Misc. No. 24720-M of 200
Date of decision: May 24,2006
Harbhajan Singh M/s. Steel Authority of India
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
Present: Shri Anand Chhibber,Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri R.S.Cheema,Senior Advocate with Shri KDS Hooda,Advocate for the complainant-respondent.
This orde shall dispose of Criminal Misc. Nos.24720-M, 24723-M, 24726-M, 24729-M, 24732-M, 24735-M, 24738-M, 24741-M, of
2000. All the aforesaid petitions have been filed by Harbhajan Singh and controversy in all the cses is identical. For the sake of convenience facts are borrowed from Crl.Misc. 24720-M of 2000.
The present petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint dated September 21,995 under sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the petitioner has also challenged the summoning order dated July 6,1996 passed by the Judicial Magistrate I Class, Chandigarh and also the order dated January 31,2000 passed by the Judicial Magistrate dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under section 245 of the Code. It appears that the complaint in question has been filed by the complainant-respondent M/s. Steel Authority of India on the ground that the cheque issued by M/s. Atma Tubes Products Limited had been dishonoured. The aforesaid cheque was issued on May 29,1995.
The petitioner, at one point of time, concededly was the Director of the aforesaid Company. However, according to the claim of the petitioner he resigned from the post on March 9,1993 as a Director of the Company. An information, in this regard, was conveyed under rule 32 to the Registrar of Companies. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid fact was duly registered with the Registrar of the Company on August 27,1993.
The petitioner claims that he had no connection with the affairs of the company nor he was, in any manner, related to the conduct of the business and its affairs, when the cheque in question was issued. On the basis of aforesaid facts, the petitioner has approached this court for quashing of the complaint and the proceedings.
In the written statement filed by the respondent-complainant, it has specifically been maintained that the petitioner was, in fact, a person who was Incharge and responsible for the management and control of the Company, in spite of the fact that he had so resigned.
However, detailed facts mentioned by the petitioner as well as the respondent-complainant need not be gone into, as after arguing the case for sometime, Shri Anand Chhiber the learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to take up all the pleas before the trial court at appropriate stage. Shri Chhibber, however, requests that personal presence of the petitioner in the proceedings before the trial court be exempted on account of the fact that the petitioner is a aged person of 75 years and is suffering from serious ailments including prostate cancer.
Keeping in view the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as claimed by the petitioner.
Personal presence of the petitioner, in the proceedings before the trial court shall remain exempted. However, the trial court shall be at liberty to require the personal presence of the petitioner on any date which may be deemed appropriate.
A copy of the order be given dasti on usual charges.
May 24, 2006 ( Viney Mittal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.