Sandeep Sharma, J.

(Oral)

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application filed by the respondent-complainant (hereinafter ‘complainant’) under Section 302 read with Section 256 Cr.P.C. in complaint No.685 of 2013, came to be allowed, petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying therein to set aside aforesaid order.

2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings, as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that person namely Ram Chand, son of Sh. Puran Chand, Managing Director of Ankit Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, ‘the Act’) in the competent Court of law alleging therein that Cheque bearing No.925131 for sum of ₹1,50,000/- issued by accused towards discharge of lawful liability was dishonoured on account of ‘insufficient funds’ in the bank account of the complainant. Since despite his having received notice, accused failed to make the payment good well within the stipulated time, complainant had no option but to institute proceedings under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, but before same could be taken to its logical end, above named Ram Chand expired, as a result thereof, LRs of Ram Chand filed application under Section 302 read with Section 256 of Cr.P.C. for their impleadment on account of being LRs of deceased Ram Chand. Afore application was allowed, as a result thereof, deceased-complainant Ram Chand came to be substituted by his LRs.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by learned Court below, thereby permitting the LRs of deceased complainant Ram Chand to prosecute the case further, accused has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Vinod Chauhan, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that learned Court below has fallen in grave error in permitting the LRs of deceased complainant Ram Chand to prosecute the case further for the reason that complaint under Section 138 of the Act was filed by Ram Chand in the capacity of his being Managing Director of M/s Ankit Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. and as such, he could not be substituted by his LRs, rather for continuation of the proceedings, if any, under Section 138 of the Act, other Directors of the Company could have come forward, but in no eventuality, LRs of deceased complainant could be permitted to prosecute the case further.

5. Mr. Umesh Kanwar, learned counsel representing respondent, while supporting the impugned order dated 11.03.2024, vehemently argued that present petition is not maintainable because appropriate remedy, if any, for laying challenge to order passed upon the application under Section 305 read with Section 256 Cr.P.C. was to file criminal revision petition in the competent Court of law i.e. before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, however, petitioner straightaway approached this Court in the instant proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. While making this Court peruse record of the learned Court below, Mr. Kanwar, learned counsel representing respondent, further argued that Cheque, which is subject matter of proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Act, nowhere suggest that same has been issued in the name of firm, rather same was issued in the name of Mr. Ram Chand.

6. Having carefully perused Cheque, which is subject matter of the present case, this Court finds that same has been issued in the name of ‘Ram Chand Ankit Hire Purchase’. Meaning thereby, same is not in the name of company, rather in the name of Ram Chand, who is the