Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yashasvi Talwar vs Ravinder Singh on 18 December, 2023
REENA
2023:PHHC:162598
122
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-22664 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 18, 2023
Yashasvi Talwar
desees Petitioner
versus
Ravinder Singh
seve Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
KEK
Present:- Mr. Rajender Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner
3K 2k 3
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure seeking quashing of complaint filed by respondent under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 bearing No. NACT/282/2020 dated 29.07.2023
titled as "Ravinder Singh vs. Ezee Flights Travel Pvt. Ltd. and others" pending in
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), JMIC, Malout, District Sri
Muktsar Sahib, Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner
is not an authorized person of the Ezee Flights Travel Private Limited. Infact Mr.
Gaurav Chhibber is the authorized person as per the Company Master Data
annexed with the present petition as Annexure P-14. __ Further reliance is placed
upon Annexure P-15 to emphasize that the petitioner is the authorized person of
Star Salons Private Limited. As such in view of the mandate of Aneeta Hada
vs. Godfather Travels & Tours Private Limited, (2012) 5 SCC 661 without
impleading the Company-Star Salons Private Limited, the criminal complaint filed
2023.12.19 11:03
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
REENA
2023.12.19
| attest to th
integrity of tl
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:162598
against the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that similar issue between the same parties is pending
consideration before this Court in CRM-M-22529 of 2023 titled as Yashasvi
Talwar vs. Ravinder Singh.
3. A two Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in HMT Watches
Ltd. vs. M.A, Abida, (2008) 13 SCC 678, speaking through Justice Dipak Misra,
has held as under:-
"10. [.....] Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or
whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact
which could have been determined only by the trial court after
recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion, the High Court
should not have expressed its view on the disputed questions of fact in
a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to
come to a conclusion that the offence is not made out. The High Court
has erred in law in going into the factual aspects of the matter which
were not admitted between the parties."
4. Following the above principle, another decision of a two Judge Bench
in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development
Agency Limited, (2014) 12 SCC 539, speaking through Justice Adarsh Kumar
Goel, has held as under:
"16. As is clear from the above observations of this Court, it is well
settled that while dealing with a quashing petition, the Court has
ordinarily to proceed on the basis of averments in the complaint. The
defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. The court
considering the prayer for quashing does not adjudicate upon a
dispute question of fact."
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the
record, this Court can not examine the probable defence of the petitioner set up in
the present petition and scuttle the proceedings before the learned trial Court even
11:03
ie accuracy and
his order/ judgment
2023:PHHC:162598
when the respondent has not led any evidence. The disputed question of fact and
probable defence would be seen by the trial Court.
6. The petition is dismissed.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
December 18, 2023
Pee
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
REENA
2023.12.19 11:03
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/ judgment
Chandigarh
