IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 1268 of 2022 Reserved on: 01.11.2023 Date of Decision: 22.11.2023 Vishal Gandhi .... petitioner Versus M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals and anr. ....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : rMr. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Shalini Thakur, Advocate.

For Respondent oNo.2 : Ms. Shashi Kiran, Advocate, vice Mr. Sahil Thakur, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge h The present petition has been filed under Section 482 gof Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by learned JMFC, Nahan iin Case No. 33 of 2020 titled M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals versus M/s Dharam Healthcare. The complainant filed a complaint before the learned JMFC asserting that the complainant is a proprietorship firm dealing in the manufacturing of drugs under the name and style of M/s Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Private Limited at Kala Amb, District Sirmaur. The accused used to purchase the drugs from the complainant. The accused issued three cheques drawn on State

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Bank of India in favour of the complainant. The accused no. 2 had issued the cheques being the Director of the Company with the assurance that the cheques would be encashed on presentation. The accused no.1 is also a Director of the Company and is In-charge of and is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The complainant presented the cheques but the cheques were returned with the remarks ‘Funds Insufficient’. The complainant requested the accused to make the payment but no payment was made; hence, the complainant served three legal notices on 30.11.2019, upon all the accused but no reply was sent. Hence, a complaint was filed before the learned Trial Court to take action as per the law.

2. h The Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to proceed against the accused and ordered the issuance of the summons on 14.01.2020.

3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by learned JMFC, Nahan, the present petition has been filed. It has been asserted that the order is based upon surmises and conjectures. The learned JMFC, Nahan had not applied its mind. The complaint on behalf of the company can be filed by the Managing Director/Director of the Company, whereas, the authorization is in the name of Sheetal Sharma. The authorisation does not show him to be the Director of the Company. The complainant claims to be a proprietorship concern and cannot have any Director. Three separate notices were sent and a joint complaint was filed, which is not permissible. The cheques do not bear the signatures of the petitioner and the learned Trial Court erred in summoning him. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by learned JMFC, Nahan, be set aside.

4. I have heard Mr Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, Ms Shalini Thakur, learned counsel for respondent no.1/complainant and Ms Shashi Kiran, learned counsel for respondent no.2/original accused.

5. Mr Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant has described itself to be a proprietorship concern and also stated that Sheetal Sharma is one of the Directors, who was authorized by the complainant to file the complaint. This is not permissible because the Director can be of a Company and not of a proprietorship concern. Three cheques were dishonoured and three separate notices were issued. A single complaint was filed, which is not permissible.

Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed.

6. Ms Shalini Thakur, learned counsel for respondent no.1/complainant submitted that it was wrongly mentioned in the complaint that the complainant is proprietorship concerned. It is apparent from the name of the complainant that it is a private limited company. It had authorized Sheetal Sharma to file the present complaint. The consolidated complaint