Daya Chaudhary, J. - (1.) This order of mine shall dispose of three Petitions bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-30961 of 2010, Crl. Misc. No. M-30964 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-4069 of 2011 as the facts and the law point involved in all the three Crl. Misc. No. M-30961 of 2010 (2) cases are similar. For the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from Crl. Misc. No. M-30961 of 2010.
(2.) The subject matter of challenge in the present petitions are Criminal complaints as well as summoning orders. Complainant-respondent-Bank filed criminal complaint No. 1029-A/2 dated 22.12.2009 against the petitioners under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging therein that various credit facilities as well as over-draft facilities were availed by M/s Atul Paints. It is further alleged that in discharge of its legal liability to adjust the over due amount, three cheques bearing, No. 47368 dated 28.10.2009 amounting to Rs. 3 lacs; cheque No. 473676 dated 28.10.2009 for Rs. 4 lacs and cheque No. 473677 dated 28.10.2009 for Rs. 4 lacs were issued by the petitioners in favour of complainant-Bank. On presentation of said cheques for encashment, the same were dishonoured and returned vide memo dated 29.10.2009 with the remarks "Funds insufficient". Accordingly, the complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Act was filed against the petitioners and the petitioners were summoned to face the trial vide order dated 24.12.2009.
(3.) The complaint as well as summoning order have been challenged on the ground that petitioner No.1 is a Private Limited Company, namely, Germane Technologies and it has two Directors, namely, Atul Ahluwalia and Anand Sagar, however, the complaint has been filed against Atul Ahluwalia only and M/s Atul Paints has not been made an accused in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that cheques in dispute were paid by Germane Technologies to M/s Atul Paints and there is no legally enforceable debt or legal liability towards the respondent-Bank and no offence is made out under Section 138 of the Act. Learned counsel further submits that Germane Technologies had ordered for some goods from M/s Atul Paints and the said cheques were paid by Germane Technologies to M/s Atul Paints as an advance. However, when the goods were received by Germane Technologies, the same were not in accordance with the order placed and it was for this reason the payment was cancelled. Learned counsel also contends that the complaint against the petitioner-company is not maintainable as the respondent-Bank has a right to recover from M/s Atul Paints only.;