[2025:RJ-JP:2675] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.41/2025 Vinay Kumar Srivastava, Director And Authorized Signatory, M/s. Hcmav Engineering And Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. 76A, Dlf Industrial Estate-I, Faridabad (Haryana)-121003, Registered Office Plot No. 129, Priya Aprtment, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi-110085. ----Petitioner Versus Shree Cement Ltd., Bangad Nagar, Beawar Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Ajmer, (Raj.) Through Manager (Legal) And Authorized Signatory, Kamalkishor Sharma S/o Late Shri Jaisitaram Ji Sharma, R/o Beawar, District Ajmer, (Raj.). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Shweta Pareek with Ms.Poonam Mishra for Mr.Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned proceedings arising out of the criminal case No.43/2014 filed by the complainant against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner to the respondents as a security and the same were undated. Counsel submits that there was an agreement between the parties wherein a provision was kept for settlement of disputes by way of arbitration in case, any differences arise between the parties. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the complaint filed by the respondent [2025:RJ-JP:2675] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-41/2025] against the petitioner is not tenable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. Perusal of the record indicates that a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, has been submitted by the complaintant against the petitioner with the allegation that a cheque was issued by the petitioner and the same was return by the concerned bank without payment and accordingly, cognizance was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 04.05.2016. 5. Whether the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner as security or not. Whether there was any debt or liability due against the complainant or not. Whether there is a clause for settlement of dispute by way of arbitration between the parties in the agreement or not. All these questions are required to be seen and adjudicated by the learned Trial Court at the appropriate stage of trial, but certainly this cannot be a ground for challenging the impugned proceedings which is at the stage of cognizance only. 6. This Court finds no merit and substance in this petition. Accordingly, this same is hereby dismissed. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/31