Summoning order not interlocutory, revision maintainable even by third party invoking suo motu power; barred if beyond 90-day limitation from issuance, challenge to consequential warrants ineffective.

JUDGMENT :

RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.

1. The present revision is directed against the summoning order dated 12.08.2021 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Una, District Una, H.P. (learned Trial Court) in Complaint bearing Registration No. 212 of 2018 titled Sun Pack India vs. M/s Himalayan Hygienic Food & Drinks Pvt. Ltd. and consequential proceedings arising out of the same. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and other accused, asserting that the complainant is a registered firm manufacturing corrugated boxes. Accused No.1 is a Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Accused No.2 is a Director, and accused No. 3 is In charge of the Company. The accused had business dealings with the complainant. They used to purchase different types of corrugated boxes from the complainant on credit. The complainant issued invoices against the goods supplied to the accused, which were accepted by the accused without any protest. The accused made payment to the complainant till 10.11.2017. An amount of Rs.3,73,638/- was due from the accused to the complainant. The complainant made repeated requests for the repayment of the amount due. The accused promised to repay the amount by transferring it through NEFT up to 25th March, 2018. The accused also issued a signed security cheque drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Naya Nangal, Branch Ajoli, Naya Nangal, District Rupnagar (PB). Accused No. 3 filled in the trade name on the cheque. He also requested to present the cheque on 25.03.2018 in case payment was not made through NEFT. The accused failed to repay the amount as promised. Hence, the complainant presented the cheque on 26.03.2018; however, the cheque was returned unpaid with an endorsement ‘exceeds arrangements’. A notice was served upon the accused, but the accused failed to repay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed to take action against the accused as per the law.

3. Learned Trial Court ordered the summoning of the accused vide order dated 06.10.2018. When the petitioner did not appear, the Court ordered the issuance of bailable warrants against him on 11.04.2019 and 12.08.2021.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition asserting that the cheque was issued by accused No.2, Rashpal Singh. The petitioner/accused No.3 is the son of accused No.2. He has no concern with the business affairs, and he was pursuing his studies in business management. Vague allegations are made against him. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that no offence was committed. Accused No.1 is a firm, and only the person who was responsible for conducting its business could be arrayed as accused. There was no justification to issue a summons against the petitioner/accused. Learned Trial Court failed to consider this aspect. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the summoning order be quashed.

5. I have heard Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr. Y.P. Sood, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant.

6. Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner/accused