The application of inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of the Court based on clear and undisputed facts in determining criminal liability.

U.C. Dhyani, J.

By means of Criminal Misc. Application no. 109 of 2017, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the summoning order dated 15.02.2014, as also the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 2951 of 2013, M/s Prolific Paper Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderjeet Mehta and others, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. By means of Criminal Misc. Application no. 108 of 2017, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants seek to quash the summoning order dated 15.02.2014, as also the entire proceedings of criminal complaint case no. 2950 of 2013, M/s Prolific Paper Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderjeet Mehta and others, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the court of learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. Since factual matrix of both the applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the same, therefore, they are being decided together by this common judgment and order for the sake of brevity.

4. On a criminal complaint filed on behalf of the complainant/respondent, three accused persons were summoned to face the trial. They are Inderjeet Mehta, Balraj Sarna and Gurmeet Singh. All are facing trial in terms of order dated 15.02.2014, passed by learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Kashipur. Only two have preferred aforesaid applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. It is informed that accused Balraj Sarna does not wish to file petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., inasmuch as, he was a Director of the firm M/s Crown Paper Distributors, and he issued the cheques in question in favour of the complainant/respondent at the relevant point of time.

6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicants Inderjeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh that they have resigned from the partnership firm known as Crown Paper Distributors even before the impugned cheques were issued to the complainant/respondent. The cheques were subsequently dishonoured and, therefore, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were initiated against all the three accused persons. Out of the three, two have come before the Court by way of filing aforesaid applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C., in relation to two separate cheques issued in favour of the complainant/respondent.

7. Annexure 3 has been filed to show that Inderjeet Mehta and Gurmeet Singh resigned from the partnership firm w.e.f. 01.08.2013. The impugned cheques were issued on 27.08.2013 and 29.08.2013, respectively. These cheques were signed by Balraj Sarna, Director of the partnership firm. These facts have not been specifically denied in the counter affidavits filed on behalf of authorized representative of respondent M/s Prolific Paper Pvt. Ltd.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that it will amount to abuse of process of the Court if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the present applicants. It is, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that the Court should intervene in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent abuse of process of the Court.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that factual disputes may be settled only by the trial court and not by the Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Satish Menon v. State of Gujarat and another, 2017 Crl. L.J. 2076, to bring home the point pressed by him.

10. It may be stated, at the very outset, that it is not disputed that the cheques were signed by Balraj Sarna on behalf of the firm M/s Crown Paper Distributors. It is also not denied that the applicants have resigned from the partnership firm even before the disputed cheques were issued in favour of the respondent firm.

11. Partnership deed has alread