The court upheld the summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420, Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the sparing and cautious invocation of inherent powers of the court under Section 482, Cr.P.C.

Bakhshish Kaur, J.

1. The challenge in this petition is to the criminal complaint dated 12.3.1999 (Annexure P-2) and the consequent summoning order dated 7.5.1999 (Annexure P-3).

2. The Crystal Credits Corporation Limited has its registered Head Office at New Delhi and as per Annexure P-3, accused Nos. 2 to 4, namely Dr. M. Pathak, R.C. Joshi, A.P. S. Rana and Karamvir Singh are its officials. On August 5, 1998, the Corporation had issued a Cheque No. R.N.G. 843648 for a sum of Rs. 57,500/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Panipat, in favour of Ishwar Singh, complainant. The said Cheque, on its presentation in the Bank, was returned back with the remarks that the payment has been stopped by the drawer of the Cheque i.e. the Corporation. Hence, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420, Indian Penal Code was filed.

3. I have heard Mr. A.K. Singal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Arun Sangwal, the learned counsel representing the respondent.

4. Mr. A.K. Singal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly referred to the Letter (Annexure P-1) issued by Suresh Kumar and addressed to the Secretariat Officer, Crystal Corporation, New Delhi, wherein it is mentioned that the cheque in the name of Ishwar Singh and Krishna Devi may be given which he (Suresh Kumar) will get reinvested.

5. In my opinion the learned counsel cannot derive any benefit from Annexure P-1, because the allegations contained in the complaint are quite clear which go to show that the amount of the cheque, when presented in the Bank was not paid and the accused had intentionally not paid the amount. Above all if averments in complaint Prima facie make out a case for investigation, then the High Court cannot quash the complaint merely because one or two ingredients of the offence are missing had been started in detail. Reliance is placed on reported case Rajesh Bajaj v. State of Delhi NCY and others, 1999 SCC (Cr.) 401 : [1999(l) All India Criminal Law Reporter 732 (SC)]. The impugned order therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and no case is made out for invoking the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. as it is well settled that the inherent powers envisaged under Section 482, Cr.P.C. are to be invoked sparingly and cautiously. Inherent powers of the court could be exercised to further the object of the enactment and ends of justice and not to frustrate the purpose behind the enactment of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition having no merits; is misconceived and seems to be a misuse of the powers of the Court. Dismissed.