Madhya Pradesh High Court
Prachi Sales Dwara Propriter Priyank ... vs Maa Rewa Hospital And Research Center on 5 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10519
1 CRA-9774-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 5 th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9774 of 2024
PRACHI SALES DWARA PROPRITER PRIYANK TIWARI
Versus
MAA REWA HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CENTER AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Chaturvedi - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Raj Kumar Raghuwanshi - Advocate for respondents.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
appellant seeking quashment of the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in SCNIA/1686/2022.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant filed a
case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act before the trial Court
alleging inter alia that the present appellant which is a Proprietorship Firm,
had supplied various surgical items to the respondents and in consideration
of the supply, 4 cheques were given to the present appellant of Rs.50,000/-
each and the said cheques were dishonored as a result of which, the
complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act was filed. After
the conclusion of trial, the trial Court has dismissed the complaint while
holding that the present appellant failed to establish that he was Proprietor of
the complainant's firm and while placing reliance on the decision of the Apex
Court in the case of Milind Shripad Chandurkar vs. Kalim M. Khan [2011
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10519
2 CRA-9774-2024
(4) SCC 275] has dismissed the complaint.
3. It is contended by the counsel that the judgment of the trial Court
suffers from total non-application of mind inasmuch as, in paragraph 1 of
complaint and paragraph 1 of the examination-of-chief, it was clearly stated
by the present appellant that he was the owner of the firm known and styled
as Prachi Sales. It is further contended by the counsel that there was no
objection at any point of time by the respondents that the present appellant
was not the Proprietor of the firm Prachi Sales. It is further contended by the
counsel that an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the
respondents before the trial Court and in response to the said application, the
present appellant had brought on record various documents including GST
invoices as well as account statements and also the other documents
pertaining to registration of the firm. It is contended by the counsel that in all
those documents, the name of Priyank Tiwari was mentioned as Proprietor of
the firm. It is contended by the counsel that aforesaid all the documents were
already available on the record and at no point of time there was any
objection at the behest of the respondent, yet the trial Court concluded that
the present appellant failed to establish that he was the Proprietor of the firm
with the aid of any documentary evidence hence, proceeded to dismiss the
complaint.
4. It is contended by the counsel that the reliance on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Milind Shripad Chandurkar is misplaced in view
of the documents which were brought on record in response to the
application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. by the respondents.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10519
3 CRA-9774-2024
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the trial
Court has rightly passed the judgment, which does not require any
interference. The trial Court on due appraisal of evidence available on record
has rightly acquitted the respondents while observing that the complainant
has failed to establish that the cheques in question were issued by the
respondents in the discharge of the whole of part of any debt or other
liability by making his signatures. Therefore, no interference is warranted in
this petition.
6. Having considered the submissions and perusal of record reflects
that the trial Court, proceeded to reject the complaint while observing that
there was failure on the part of the present appellant to establish that he
was Proprietor of the firm Prachi Sales and in paragraph 22 of the judgment
of the trial Court, the trial Court observed that no evidence was produced by
the present complainant to establish that he was sole Proprietor of the firm
and accordingly, proceeded to dismiss the complaint.
7. Record reflects that various documents including account
statements, GST invoices and registration certificate were there in the record
in which, Priyank Tiwari was being shown as Proprietor of the firm Prachi
Sales. It is further evident from perusal of the examination-in-chief and
cross-examination of the complainant that no such question was ever put to
the complainant during the course of examination wherein, his status
as Proprietor of the firm was sought to be disputed. Even in the application
filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C., prima facie there is no dispute regarding
Priyank Tiwari to be Proprietor of the firm Prachi Sales simultaneously, even
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:10519
4 CRA-9774-2024
the written arguments submitted by the respondents before the trial Court, it
is nowhere mentioned that there was no document brought on record by the
complainant to establish that he was the Proprietor of the firm Prachi Sales.
8. In the considered view of this Court, there is non-consideration of
factum of the documents brought on record by the complainant in response
to the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. Thus, in the considered
view of this Court, the trial Court is required to deal with the aforesaid issue.
9. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands allowed. The judgement of
the trial Court dated 30.07.2024 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to
the trial Court, to take final decision afresh considering the entire material
brought on record by the parties.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
mn
