Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. - (1.) The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief: 'quashing the order dated 17.7.2013 passed by A.C.J.M., Court No.2, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Complaint Case No.152/9 of 2013, 'Pawan Kumar Goel v. Devendra Kumar Garg' and order dated 05.12.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court no.10, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No.290 of 2013, 'Devendra Kumar Garg v. Pawan Kumar Goel', as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.152/9 of 2013, 'Pawan Kumar Goel v. Devendra Kumar Garg' under Section 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station-Civil Lines, District-Muzaffarnagar, presently pending before the Court of learned A.C.J.M. IInd, Muzaffarnagar.'
(2.) Heard Shri. Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri. Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State O.P. No.2 is represented through his counsel Shri. Pankaj Bharti, but none appeared on his behalf even in the revised call and the judgment was reserved.
(3.) The facts as narrated in the application are as follows: (i) The O.P. No.2 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Muzaffarnagar, on 28.1.2013. In the complaint it was alleged that the complainant's firm indulged in the business of Machineries and the accused/applicant was running a chemical factory in the name and style 'Ravi Organics Ltd.' It was further alleged that during the course of transaction, accused applicant being director of his firm issued one cheque bearing No.802275 dated 31.10.2012 of Rs.10 lakhs payable at Union Bank of India, Muzaffar Nagar. It was further alleged in the complaint that the said cheque was deposited in the complainant's bank at State Bank of Patiala Court Road, Muzaffarnagar for encashment however, the same was returned by the bankers of the accused applicant with an endorsement 'Exceeds Arrangement.' It was further alleged that complainant sent one registered legal demand notice to the applicant on 29.12.2012 through registered post however, when the amount was not paid, the aforesaid complaint was filed. (ii) On the basis of the complaint as well as other materials on record, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and called the complainant to record his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The complainant filed the statement by way of an affidavit. On the basis of materials available on record, the learned A.C.J.M. Court No.II, Muzaffarnagar took cognizance by order dated 17.7.2013. (iii) The applicant being aggrieved by the summoning order dated 17.7.2013 preferred a Criminal Revision No.290 of 2013, before the Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Court on 17.7.2013. The applicant thereafter preferred present application for quashing of the order dated 17.7.2013 as well as the order dated 05.12.2015. (iv) Shri. Pankaj Bharti has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of O.P. No.2 on 22.1.206 however, no counter affidavit was filed despite the matter was listed on many occasions as well as counsel was not even present when judgment was reserved on 07.2.2020. (v) This Court passed the following order on 05.12.2016: 'Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the order dated 17.07.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Complaint Case No. 152/9 of 2013, and order dated 05.12.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffarnagar in Criminal Revision No. 290 of 2013, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that complaint has been filed without making party to the company though complainant case is that cheque in question had been issued by the applicant in capacity of the director of Ravi Organics Limited. At this stage learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following case laws. I. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another (2005)8 Supreme Court Cases 89. II. Yogendra Kumar Khullar @ Bittoo v. State of U.P. and another 2012 (79) ACC 789. III. Anita Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases 661. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant argued that non-bailable warrant has been issued in the matter. Applicant is authorized signatory hence complaint can go on. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down in Anita Hada (supra), Yogendra Kumar Khullar @ Bittoo (supra) and S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (supra), matter requires thorough consideration. Learned AGA has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite party no.1. Issue notice to opposite party no. 2. Steps be taken by Registered Post A.D. within a week. All the opposite parties may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List on 25.04.2016 before the appropriate Bench. Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case shall remain stayed only against the applicant.' ;