HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1880/2021 Sachin Bohra S/o Sh. Chandraprakash Bohra, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o 17 E/359, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Babulal Sharma S/o Sh. Komalchand Sharma, B/c Sharma, R/o C-71, Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP
Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 10/11/2021 By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner Sachin Bohra has approached this court for assailing the validity of the order dated 20.01.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jodhpur in Criminal Revision Case No.400/2019 arising out of the order passed by the trial court dated 09.07.2019, whereby, the trial court read over the accusation for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated before the trial court on the ground that the firm of which the petitioner has been portrayed to be a partner i.e. Shree Datar Group, was not impleaded as party in the complaint and as such (Downloaded on 10/11/2021 at 08:34:14 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1880/2021] the petitioner individually could not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
The revisional court while considering the said objection raised by the petitioner has observed that the amount which was given by the complainant to the accused was in the capacity as a personal loan. The accused projected himself to be the authorized signatory of the Shree Datar Group in the cheque, but the complainant did not set up a case that the liability to pay his dues was that of any firm or company as the case may be. Since the accused has admittedly given the cheque to cover his personal liability, there was no need to implead the commercial establishment named on the cheque as a party respondent in the complaint.
The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Ajit Balse Vs. Capt. Ranga Karkere reported in [2015 (2) Civil Court Cases 829 (S.C.)], Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd. reported in [2012 (3) Civil Court Cases 121 (S.C.)] and Rajesh Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan through P.P. & Anr. reported in [2017 (2) Cr.LR. (Raj.) 887] have no application to the facts of the present case because in all those cases, the complaint was filed in relation to liability of the firm/institution/company concerned and the proceedings of the complaint were dropped on the ground that the firm or the company as the case may be were not impleaded as party respondents in the complaint.
As stated above, in case at hand, it is not even clear as to whether Shree Datar Group, of which the petitioner is said to be (Downloaded on 10/11/2021 at 08:34:14 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1880/2021] the authorized signatory, is a company or a firm. Furthermore, as stated above, the cheque was given by the accused to the complainant for covering his personal liability and as such, the commercial institution/establishment was not required to be impleaded as a party respondent in the complaint.
Having appreciated the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and finding no infirmity, illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, I am not inclined to interfere therein while exercising this court's inherent powers.
In view of the above discussion, the instant miscellaneous petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 246-Shahenshah/Vivek-
(Downloaded on 10/11/2021 at 08:34:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)