M/S Shrinath Pharma vs. Menschlich Healthcare PVT. LTD.

Facts

The applicants filed a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 528 of BNSS challenging a summoning order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the learned 3rd ACJM, Dehradun, in Criminal Case No. 4823 of 2024. The case was filed by Menschlich Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. against Shrinath Pharma and another under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882. The applicants sought to quash the entire proceedings. The primary contentions were that no inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was held before issuing summons, and despite allegations of liability on the partnership firm, the dishonoured cheque was issued in the name of applicant no. 2.

Held

The Court found substance in the respondent's submission that all grounds raised by the applicants are available to be taken before the Magistrate. The Court reasoned that it could not decide the guilt of the applicants in a criminal miscellaneous application. Therefore, there was no scope for interference with the impugned order. The Court explicitly stated that it did not find any reason to interfere with the summoning order. The application was dismissed, leaving the applicants to raise their contentions before the Magistrate.

Key Issues

1. Whether the summoning order dated 11.07.2024 is liable to be quashed on the ground that no inquiry contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was held before issuing summons to the applicants? 2. Whether the summoning order is liable to be quashed as the cheque, though alleged to be issued by the partnership firm, was in the name of applicant no. 2? Petitioner's Arguments: The applicants argued that no inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. was conducted prior to the issuance of summons. They further contended that while the notice alleged liability on the partnership firm M/s Shrinath Pharma, the dishonoured cheque was issued in the name of applicant no. 2. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, represented by a Director, argued that proviso (b) to Section 202 Cr.P.C. was followed. They submitted that the partnership firm is a dummy, not registered with CGST, and lacks accounts, with all transactions being handled by the applicants. The respondent contended that all grounds raised by the applicants are available to be taken before the Magistrate.