w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Skyline Engg. Contracts and Others v/s Vinod Kumar Thapar and Others


Company & Directors' Information:- SKYLINE INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PLC075875

Company & Directors' Information:- SKYLINE INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L51909DL1996PLC075875

Company & Directors' Information:- S K CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL1986PTC025351

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. E. CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC192042

Company & Directors' Information:- A B CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC105814

Company & Directors' Information:- R S CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202WB1997PTC084794

Company & Directors' Information:- J D CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2011PTC214287

Company & Directors' Information:- D H CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2010PTC198200

Company & Directors' Information:- N J CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210HR2011PTC042559

Company & Directors' Information:- J P S CONTRACTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2000PTC107170

    Criminal Misc No. 12300-M of 2005

    Decided On, 31 May 2006

    At, High Court of Punjab and Haryana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

    For the Petitioner: Manjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate. For the Respondent: Parminder Singh, Advocate.



Judgment Text

T.P.S. Mann, J.

The petitioners are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings launched against them on the basis of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. It has been submitted that the bill for Rs. 2,05,793/- raised by the respondents for the supply of bricks to the petitioner was finally settled at Rs. 2,05,460/-, which amount has since been paid in its entirety by way of a bank-draft for Rs. 1,00,000/- and the remaining amount through cheque, which has since been cleared and the amount credited to the respondents. The cheque in question, which was earlier cancelled and for an amount of Rs. 2,05,460/- in respect of above bill was issued earlier but after the payment of the amount, the cheque was cancelled by respondents and returned to the petitioner. It was later on learnt that the cheque which was returned to the petitioner, was not the original one but a coloured photocopy of the cheque in question. Further, it has been submitted that the said cheque had been re-submitted by the respondents with an intention to take double the amount from the petitioners when the said cheque was dishonoured. Although the payment had already been made by the petitioners earlier to the respondents, present complaint was instituted by the latter against the former.

3. A perusal of the notice dated 11.8.2004 (Annexure P.6) issued by respondents under Section 138 of the Act, clearly mentions that the earlier bill for Rs. 2,05,793/-, which amount was finally settled as Rs. 2,05,460/- had already been cleared by the petitioners and the cheque in question was for other outstanding bills regarding the supply of bricks.

"The payment for bill dated 3.11.2003 for the value of Rs. 2,05,793/- stands already made through a draft and a cheque and payment of remaining three bills still outstands against you.

On account of part payment, you handed over a cheque bearing No. 190012 dated 21.1.2004 for Rs. 2,05,460/- drawn on Canara Bank, Rajpura Road, Ludhiana to my client and you assured that the said cheque on presentation shall be duly honoured and amount realized from the said cheque may be adjusted towards outstanding against the said supplies made to you."

4. Even while filing the criminal complaint, the respondents reiterated their earlier stand taken in the notice by alleging as follows :

"The accused have been making part payments against said supplies made to them by the complainants. The bricks supplied prior to these bills have already been accounted for. The payment for bill dated 30.11.2003 for the value of Rs. 2,05,793/- stands already made through a draft and a cheque and the payment of remaining three bills still outstands against the accused, which comes to Rs. 2,83,937/-.

On account of part payment, the accused handed over a cheque bearing No. 190012, dated 21.1.2004 for Rs. 2,05,460/- drawn on Canara Bank, Rajpura Road, Ludhiana to the complainants and assured that the said cheque on presentation shall be duly honoured and amount realized from the said cheque may be adjusted towards outstanding against the said supplies made to them."

5. It is, thus, clear that the cheque in question was not in respect of the earlier amount, which was claimed by the complainant/respondents, but was for another payment which by sheer co-incidence, turned out to be for similar amount i.e. Rs. 2,05,460/-. Thus, it cannot be said that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant to get double the amount.

6. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant did not disclose all the relevant and material documents while filling the criminal complaint. He has relied upon S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagann

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ath (dead) by LRs and Others 1994 (1) SCC (1). 7. I have perused the complaint instituted by the respondents. The same contains all the relevant and material facts. Moreover, all relevant and material documents were also produced before the Court at the time of issuance of process for summoning the petitioners as accused. 8. Finding no merit in the petition, I dismiss the same. Dismissed.
O R