Manohar Lal Narula vs State of Punjab and Others

M.M.S. Bedi, J.—Petitioner being an accused in a complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ''the Act'') has challenged two orders dated January 10, 29009 and February 25, 2009 which is pending before this Court in Crl. Misc. No. M-5863 of 2009 and is fixed for August 31, 2010 before a Coordinate Bench. The petitioner filed another petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-5503 of 2009 praying for quashing of the criminal proceedings u/s 138 of the Act in six criminal complaints. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on July 15, 2010 by Rajan Gupta, J, with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh with better particulars.

The present petition has now been filed praying for quashing of proceedings in six criminal complaints u/s 138 of the Act, i.e. annexures P-2 to P-7, besides praying that the issuance of warrants of arrest of the petitioner in proclaimed offender proceedings initiated by the Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura be stayed.

When asked as to what better particulars have been added in the present petition, counsel informs that better particulars have been mentioned in paras No. 1 and 3.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that the present petition challenging six separate criminal proceedings launched by six separate complaints cannot be challenged simultaneously by filing one petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. merely on the ground that the cheques which had been issued on behalf of the petitioner, were issued as security and that these were lying with complainantrespondent No. 2 as security cheques and not in view of the debt. The plea that the cheques were issued as security and were not to discharge the liability, cannot be appreciated at this stage especially when the petitioner has evaded his appearance before the trial Court and the proceedings for declaring him a proclaimed offender have been initiated. No ground is made out for exercising inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

Dismissed.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has again requested to give him liberty to file a fresh petition.

It is always open to the petitioner to file any number of petitions subject to their maintainability and fulfilling the parameters required for interference u/s 482 Cr.P.C.