2025:UHC:12 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application (u/s 528) No. 926 of 2024 Ashish Shukla and Others --Applicants Versus Karan Pal Singh --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Rishab and Mr. Lalit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this C528 application, applicants have challenged the summoning order dated 03.12.2020 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, as well as the entire proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.4903 of 2020 Karan Pal Singh Vs. Ashish Shukla and Others, pending before the Court of learned First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are the office bearers of the Company known as Shanti Refrigeration Industries Private Limited situated in Plot No.27/28, Sector I.I.D.C. Sidcul, Pant Nagar, Udham Singh Nagar and were working with the said company with the capacity of office employee. The said company performs functions of manufacturing Air Conditioners and its parts. 2025:UHC:12 2 4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the respondent is a partner in a company named Behl Service Centre, which supplied diesel and petrol to the applicants’ Company and the applicants’ company issued cheque to the firm not to the respondent, therefore, the said company should be arrayed as a main party to the complaint filed under Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act. He contends that Section 141 of N.I. Act mandates that if a company commits an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the company itself must be made a party to the proceedings. Therefore, he submits that as the procedural formality has not been fulfilled, the complaint is not maintainable and the same should be quashed. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that during cross-examination the respondent admitted that he had not presented any evidence such as invoice copy, material receiving copy, LR etc. to establish that the cheque in-question was issued against a legally enforceable debt. The respondent also admitted during cross-examination that his firm received payments from the applicants through various modes including RTGS, cheque and cash. This admission indicates that any outstanding balance could have been settled in cash. Therefore, the respondent’s reliance on the cheque in-question as a means of recovery appears to be misuse of the company’s security cheque, therefore, the complaint should be quashed. 2025:UHC:12 3 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicants and having gone through the entire documents available on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that mere technical defects should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice and this Court is of the view that a procedural prescription is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. Moreover, the trial has already proceeded for more than 04 years and is at the verge of conclusion, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants can very well be dealt with by the learned trial court. In this view of the matter too, at this belated stage, no interference is warranted. 7. Accordingly, the C528 application is dismissed in-limine. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 02.01.2025 PN PREETI NEGI Digitally signed by PREETI NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=63c75a8c4765581180a58d7478fadbe38331bac55c78b5f9f02 76c16432f6aab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=2BA53171893B3C3CB3CCCAE81FAE064498483A83D84 BDB0F9229D5BF08D959AC, cn=PREETI NEGI Date: 2025.01.08 10:23:00 +05'30'