HARMINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
State of Uttarakhand and Anr.
Click here to view full judgement.
Alok Singh, J. -
(1.) IN the present petition, order dated 16.06.2012, passed by Special Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to summon the present petitioner as an additional accused while exercising the powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is being assailed. Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that complainant/respondent herein preferred a complaint before the learned trial Magistrate under Section 420 IPC and Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, stating therein O.Ps No. 2 & 3 were the partners of O.P. No. 1 M/s. Seven Communications; complainant was a consultant and used to work for M/s. Reliance World; meeting of complainant with M/s. Seven Communications and others was arranged; complainant and O.Ps No. 2 and 3 agreed and decided that both of them would work on the Center of Reliance World; complainant was to provide technical advice while M/s. Seven Communications was to supervise quality check; after settlement, O.Ps agreed in writing to pay Rs. 65,00,000/ - to the complainant; pursuant to settlement, O.Ps handed over cheque No. 758750 of Rs. 65,00,000/ - dated 07.09.2008 to the complainant; on presentation, cheque was returned on 27.05.2008 with the endorsement "fund insufficient"; a legal notice was issued, by registered post A.D, on 21.05.2008 along with U.P.C. on the correct address of the O.Ps, however, within the statutory period of the notice, O.Ps failed to make payment of the cheque, therefore complaint.
(2.) LEARNED Magistrate, vide order dated 17.09.2008, was pleased to summon M/s. Seven Communications as well as O.P. No. 3 being partner of the M/s. Seven Communications under Section 138 of Negotiable Act. It has been specifically observed by the learned Magistrate, in the summoning order, that no material was produced before the Court to suggest that Harminder Singh, present petitioner herein was the partner; moreover cheque was not under the signature of Harminder Singh, therefore, there was no sufficient ground to summon Harminder Singh, present petitioner. Learned Magistrate further observed that there was absolutely no material justifying the summoning for an offence under Section 420 IPC. During the hearing, complainant/respondent No. 2 herein on 08.06.2012, moved an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. requesting the court to summon the present petitioner as an additional accused stating therein that during the cross -examination on 05.10.2009, it has come on the record that Harminder Singh, present petitioner was also partner and involved in day today affairs of the partnership firm.
(3.) LEARNED Magistrate, having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, was pleased to summon the present petitioner as additional accused. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.