LexLAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE INDIA P. LTD versus SUKARSH AZAD & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2013] 11 S.C.R 74
LAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE INDIA P. LTD
v.
SUKARSH AZAD & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1941 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 10, 2013
[GYAN SUDHA MISRA AND
PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - s. 138 - Code of
C Civil Procedure, 1908- Order IX r.13 - Dishonour of cheque
of amount Rs.2,50,0001- - On the ground of 'stop payment'
instruction - Complaint uls. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- Petition u/s. 482 - High Court quashed the complaint and
the consequential proceedings, by ex-parte order -
D Application for recall of the ex-parte order dismissed -
Present appeals against the order dismissing the application
for recalling the ex-parte order and also against the ex-parte
order - Held: Appeal against the order in application for
recalling the ex-parte order is devoid of merit as the applicant
E failed to offer sufficient cause for his non-appearance on the
date when the complaint was quashed - The appeal against
the ex-parte order is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
delay as well as on merit - However, in the interest of equity,
justice and fair play, direction to make payment to the
F complainant for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, which would be treated
as an overall amount including interest and compensation
towards the cheque for which 'stop payment 'instruction was
issued.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
G No.1941 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.11.2010 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM No. 55019
of 2010 in Crl. Misc. No. 20203 of 2010.
H
74
LAFARGE AGGREGATES & CONCRETE INDIA P.
75
LTD v. SUKARSH AZAD
WITH
Crl. A. No. 1942 of 2013.
Ajay Bhargava, Vanita Bhargava, Nitin Mishra, Abhijeet
Swaroop, Khaitan & Co. for the Appellant.
Sudhir Walia, Abhishek Atrey for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant herein has challenged the order passed
by the High Court whereby it t.ias allowed the petition filed by
A
B
c
the respondents herein, who are the Directors in a company
D
known as M/s. Ria Constructions Ltd. and was pleased to
quash the complaint lodged by the appellant as also all
consequential proceedings pending before the Magistrate in
regard to the complaint lodged by the appellant for an offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
E
3. Admittedly, the accused no. 2 in the complaint had
issued the cheque in favour of the appellant for a sum of
Rs.2,50,000/-, which was dishonoured as there was instruction
of 'stop payment' by the Managing Director. This led to the
lodgment of a complaint at the instance of the petitioner in which
F
proceedings started.
4. At this stage, the respondents herein filed a petition
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
{"Cr.P.C." for short) praying for quashing of the complaint and
G
all consequential proceeding wherein the respondents had
offered to tender the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/- to the
appellant who had lodged the complaint alleging that the stop
payment instructions by the respondents was illegal which
made the offence triable in a summary procedure before the
Magistrate. As already stated, the respondents offered to pay
H
76
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 11 S.C.R.
A the cheque amount of Rs.2,50,000/- which had been
dishonoured due to instructions of stop payment.
5. The High Court allowed the petition filed by the
respondents herein for quashing of the proceeding but the said
8 order was passed ex-parte. The appellant, therefore, filed an
application for recall of the said order but the High Court
dismissed the application for recall on the ground. that the
averments in the complaint did not meet the test laid .down by
this Court in the matter of N.K. Wahi Vs. Shekhar Singh and
C others, 2007 (9) SCC 481. It is this order which' is under
challenge in this special leave petition at the instance of the
appellant-complainant.
6. We have heard counsel for the appellant as also the
respondents and taking an overall view of the matter, we are
D · of the opinion that this appeal is not fit to be entertained against
rejection of the application for recall of the order by which the
proceedings against the respondents herein had been quashed
by the High Court. Nevertheless, we are conscious of the fact
that the appellant should not be deprived of the amount for which
E the respondents had sExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.