* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. M.C. 2435/2004 & CRL.M.A.8177/05, 8287/05
CRL.M.C. 2436/2004 & CRL.M.A. 8179/04, 8288/05
CRL.M.C. 2222/2007 & CRL.M.A. 7836/07
Date of Decision : 18.4.2012
M/S TALENT TELE TIMES LTD. & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through Ch.Ranjit Singh, Adv.
versus
M/S YADU INDIA LTD. ..... Respondent
M/S YADU RESORTS I LTD. ..... Respondent
M/S DHARAMPUTRA BUILDERS P. LTD.
..... Respondent
Through Mr.Amit Bhardwaj and Mr.Vishal
Malhotra, Advs.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (Oral)
1. These are three petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act as well as the order of summoning dated 01.5.2003.
Crl.M.C.Nos.2435/04, 2436/04, 2222/07 Page 1 of 8
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141/142 of the of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by one M/s Yadu Resorts(I) Ltd. against M/s Talent Tele Times Ltd. and its Director authorized signatory Mr.S.L.Maloo.
4. The allegations made therein were that in pursuance to some property transactions, the petitioner no.2, the authorized signatory of the petitioner no.1 had issued cheque dated 28.2.2003 for a sum of `1,00,00,000/- in Crl.M.C. no.2435/04, cheque dated 11.1.2003 for a sum of `50,00,000/- in Crl.M.C. no.2436/04 and cheque dated 28.8.2003 for a sum of `1,00,00,000/- in Crl.M.C.2222/07, drawn on Development Credit Bank Ltd., Connaught Place, New Delhi which were dishonoured with the remarks 'Payment Stopped by Drawer'. Statutory notice was purported to have been Crl.M.C.Nos.2435/04, 2436/04, 2222/07 Page 2 of 8 issued to the petitioners by the respondent /complainant and as the amount was not paid, the complainant filed three separate complaints against the present petitioners on 10.3.2003.
5. The trial Court after recording the pre summoning evidence passed an order of summoning against the present petitioners on 1.5.2003.
6. The petitioners feeling aggrieved by the said summoning order as well as the complaint, filed the present petitions praying for quashing of not only the summoning order but also the complaint which came up for the first time before this Court on 6.10.2004. Since then, the matter has been pending without any effective hearing for last more than eight years in which the order sheets are replete with the request for adjournment on behalf of the petitioners. There is an interim order of exemption operating in favour of the petitioners. Today also, when the learned counsel for the petitioners was directed to Crl.M.C.Nos.2435/04, 2436/04, 2222/07 Page 3 of 8 argue the matter in the first instance, he sought a date which was refused and he was directed to make his submissions as these are old cases.
7. Since adjournment was not given, the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the cheques which are purported to have been issued by the petitioners to the respondent were without any consideration and that too they were issued under threat and coercion inasmuch as, the petitioner was abducted and taken to the home of Sh.D.P.Yadav, a known muscle man, having interest in the respondent company /complainant and then made to sign the cheques.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners actually had a huge chunk of land in Gurgaon, measuring 300 acres, out of which it was agreed that a parcel of land measuring 100 acres or so would be sold in order to liquidate the liabilities. In this process an advertisement was published and the respondent Crl.M.C.Nos.2435/04, 2436/04, 2222/07 Page 4 of 8 /complainant had agreed to purchase the land in question for a consideration of `45 lacs. Since the land had been sold as undervalued, the petitioners had approached Mr.Yadav, whereupon, the latter had agreed to re-convey the land to the petitioners. For this purpose, the cheques in question apart from the other cheques were purportedly issued by the petitioners to show as a sale consideration for re-conveying the property in favour of the petitioners. It was also stated that as the land in question had already been transferred to a third party by the respondent /complainant, consequently, it could not be re-conveyed to the petitioner and thus there was no consideration for issuance of the cheque by the petitioners to the respondent. This is in addition to the fact that the petitioners had issued the cheques in question when he was in captivity of Sh.D.P.Yadav at his residence at 1, Crl.M.C.Nos.2435/04, 2436/04, 2222/07 Page 5 of 8 B.R.Mehta Lane, New Delhi when a pistol was put on his head.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the complaint dated 3.1.2003, 9.1.2003 and the Crl. Writ bearing no.117/2003 filed by the petitioner no.2 in the High Court in order to justify his stand and having issued the cheque without any consideration.
10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. The powers of the Court regarding quashing of the FIR or the complaint have been crystallized by the Supreme Court in case titled State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. AIR 1992 SC 604, wherein seven illustrative contingencies have been enumerated in the said judgment. The present case does not fall in any of the contingencies visualized in the said judgment. On the contrary, in the said judgment, a note of caution has Crl.M.C.Nos.2435/04, 2436/04, 2222/07 Page 6 of 8 been struck that the power of quashing has to be exercised sparingly and that too with a great deal of caution. More so, in cases where the disputed question of facts arises for consideration.
12. In the instant case, the points on which the petitioner wants the complaint including the summoning order to be dismissed are essentially constituting the disputed questions of facts which can be tested only during the course of trial when both the parties have adduced their evidence.
13. These submissions which the petitioners have made before this Court essentially constitutes his defence and cannot be taken as the ground for quashing the complaint or the summoning order and thus pre-empting the powers of the trial Court in adjudicating the dispute on merits. It is really very sad that the complaint has been kept pending and been taking valuable time of the Court for last more than eight years and the petitioners Crl.M.C.Nos.2435/04, 2436/04, 2222/07 Page 7 of 8 have also been enjoying the exemption on account of the benefit of the interim order. I feel that the petition is totally misconceived and therefore, has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.
14. Since the main petitions are dismissed, no separate orders are required to be passed in the applications.
15. A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 18, 2012 RN Crl.M.C.Nos.2435/04, 2436/04, 2222/07 Page 8 of 8