TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the stand taken by the petitioners herein qua the application filed for dropping of proceedings before the trial court and therefore, the complaint is without basis - the Court finds no reason either to interfere in the order dated 19.05.2012, passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed for dropping of proceedings exemption to the applicants therein, was dismissed. Petition dismissed. - CRMC No.314/2012 IA No.370/2012 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE For the Petitioner : Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Dogra, Advocate JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter indicated that no liability of the petitioners remained towards the respondent after the final bill. The complaint was outcome of the cancellation of work which was allotted to the respondent by the company. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable. The work was being executed on behalf of Government of India and no such transaction could be done by the petitioners as projected by way of raising of claim through cheque purportedly issued by the petitioners in favour of the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 case titled Inder Mohan Goswami another Vs. State of Uttaranchal others; and (2013) 3 SCC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 482 of the Code. There cannot be any dispute to what has been enunciated by the Apex Court in this celebrated judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also taken the court through other documents to support the argument that the complaint filed by the respondent is only abuse of the process of law. 6. Mr. Ravi Dogra, learned counsel for the respondent, has argued that the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners by referring to the documents annexed with the petition do not call for quashing the complaint on that score. The purport of letters referred to by the petitioners is a matter of trial and the factual aspects of the case cannot be given finality in the present proceedings as this court while exercising the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers is of 30.11.2000 meaning thereby that the petitioners rely upon that document which came into being only after the issuance of the cheque. The context of the letter dated 30.11.2000 is again the factor which this court cannot thrash qua the complaint filed by the respondent or can be the reason to dismiss the complaint at threshold. 10. As far as the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners that the complaint does not make out that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioners in discharge of their liability and therefore the complaint is not maintainable, is again the ground which has no force. Para 3 of the complaint itself reveals that the cheque was issued in favour of the complainant-respondent in discharge of the lia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d upon to give the verdict which requires full trial and this argument can be pursued by the petitioners before the trial court in case they intend to rely upon the same as defense. 13. Last but not the least, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners that the order dated 12.03.2001 whereby the trial court has issued notice to the petitioners is without application of mind, is again without substance. The court has taken cognizance of the matter after going through the complaint and the statement recorded in support of the same. No illegality is found in the order impugned in the present petition. 14. The Court, in the present case, is called upon to give verdict upon factual aspects of the matter which are required to be decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
