The court upheld the trial court's decision to issue summons based on specific allegations of cheating and forgery, affirming the necessity of a prima facie case without quashing the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of the criminal complaint bearing COMI No. 16 of 2020 dated 03.02.2020 along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 16.05.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, District Faridkot, against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420/465/468/ 471/506 of the IPC, 1860 as well as the order dated 16.10.2023 (P-3) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner impugning the summoning order dated 16.05.2023 was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Complainant / respondent No 2 is the sole proprietor of M/s.Dasmesh Agro. Center, who was admittedly procuring pesticides and other materials from the Company of the petitioner since 2013. It is alleged by him that while dealing with the company of the petitioner, the complainant had issued six signed blank cheques as security towards the business transactions. Complainant / respondent No.2 filed criminal complaint before the Ld. JMIC bearing COMI No. 16 of 2020 dated 03.02.2020 to summon accused Dhanuka Agritech Limited and others under Sections 420/465/467/468/471/182/506/ 120B IPC, on the allegations that though complainant has settled the whole account with accused company, however, accused persons still demanded Rs. 35,26,379/- from complainant on the basis of a forged and fabricated bill dated 15.03.2019 and also filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') against the complainant. It was further averred that this demand is despite the fact that complainant had filed an application before SSP, Faridkot for enquiry of misuse of blank signed cheque of complainant for Rs. 35,00,000/-.

2.1 Trial Court vide impugned order dated 16.05.2023 issued summoning order against the petitioner & Dhanuka Agritech Limited. It is relevant to mention here that summons were not issued against other persons as their relationship with the company was not found to be substantiated. Even necessary ingredients to summon the petitioner & company for the offences punishable under Sections 467/ 182/ 120B IPC were not found to be made out, however, they were ordered to be summoned for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420/465/468/471/506 IPC. 2.2 Revision petition filed by the petitioner impugning the summoning order dated 16.05.2023 was also dismissed vide order dated 16.10.2023 by learned Sessions Judge, District Faridkot.

2.3 By way of present petition, challenge has been made to both the aforesaid orders as well as quashing the complaint and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

3. Contrarily, the case as projected by the petitioner is that Respondent No.2 placed an order dated 11.03.2019 for supply of insecticides along-with a request for enhancing of credit limit through mobile application. The said order of supply was accepted by the Petitioner's company and a tax invoice dated 15.03.2019 was issued against the same and the goods were duly supplied through M/s. Bhagwati Transport Company, Ahmedabad vide Bilty No. 5211 dated 15.03.2019 through Truck No. RJ-31-GA-9716, which was being driven by Mehnga Singh. It was also submitted that as per the business procedure, respondent No.2 used to confirm the balance in the beginning of each financial year and in pursuance of the same, a letter dated 18.04.2019 was issued to respondent No.2 along-with his account statement from 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 which was duly acknowledged by him by affixing his seal on the same. To discharge his liability, respondent No.2 issued a Cheque bearing No. 000975 dated 04.06.2019 for a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- . But subsequently, in order to wriggle out of his liability to make payment for the delivered goods, respondent No. 2 addressed a letter dated 05.07