Sachin Bohra vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16766 Raj

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

(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

(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-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)