- (1.)THE present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') has been preferred seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.959/17.04.2012 dated 07.01.2010 (Annexure P1) under Sections 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'the Act') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurgaon, the summoning order dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure P2) and proceedings emanating therefrom.
(2.)THE facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that India Bulls Financial Services Ltd. through its authorised representative filed a criminal complaint under Sections 138/142 of the Act read with Section 357 of the Code against Afila Tech India Pvt.Ltd. through its authorised signatory and Amarnath B G Mutt on the plea that cheque bearing No.343179 dated 24.10.2009 for Rs.1,10,347/ - drawn on Karnataka Bank Ltd., Overseas Branch, Bangalore issued by the company -accused No.1 in discharge of its liability got dishonoured on its presentation to the bank with the remarks "account closed" and the accused failed to make the payment despite receipt of notice. The Judicial Magistrate, during pendency of the case, passed impugned order dated 11.04.2013 (Annexure P2) while disposing of the application under Section 319 of the Code summoning Sudhir as an accused in the case.
(3.)THE petitioner raised various grounds to assail the criminal complaint as well as summoning order dated 11.04.2013. However, counsel for the petitioner was directed to address on the maintainability of the petition keeping in view that his primary grievance is against order dated 11.04.2013 whereby he was ordered to be summoned in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code.
Counsel for the petitioner would submit that order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in exercise of power under Section 319 of the Code summoning the petitioner to face trial is an interlocutory order, therefore, the remedy to file revision is not available to the petitioner and he can challenge order dated 11.04.2013 only by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code. In support of his contention, he has referred to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bholu Ram Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008 9 SCC 140; Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shahand others Vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2011 13 SCC 316. Another submission made by counsel is that order framing of charge was held to be interlocutory order and appeal against the same being not competent in view of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of V. C.Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., 1980 AIR(SC) 962. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records.