Tsn Marketing (India) Ltd & Anr vs M/S Super Domestic Dust Busters ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 3748 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       Crl.M.C.2719/2004
                                             Date of Decision:14.09.2009

        TSN MARKETING (INDIA) LTD & Anr.                  ..... Petitioners
                            Through:     None

                    Versus


        M/S SUPER DOMESTIC DUST BUSTERS (P) LTD. & Anr..... Respondents
                            Through:  None

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?                                           Yes

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?                             Yes

3.      Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

:       MOOL CHAND GARG,J(Oral)

1.      This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482

Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order passed by the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 23.10.2004 on a

criminal complaint instituted in 2000 by the respondent No.1 under

Section 138/141 of the N.I. Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. By

the impugned order, the trial Court dismissed the application moved

by the petitioner to recall the summoning order at the stage of notice

under Section 251 Cr.P.C. relying upon the judgment delivered by

the Supreme Court in the case of Adalat Prasad Vs. Roop Lal Jindal &




Crl.M.C.2719/2004                                                     Page 1 of 3
 Ors. 113 (2004) DLT 356 (SC). The complaint was filed on behalf of

the respondent No.1 on the allegations that cheques issued by the

petitioner to the complainant against supply of material, i.e., vacuum

cleaners against invoices were duly transported and, thereafter, when

the cheques were presented, the same were dishonoured by their

bankers, i.e., Bank of India, Okhla Industrial Estate Branch, New

Delhi of insufficiency of funds. The cheques were presented at the

advice of the petitioner again and again but always the cheques were

returned unpaid on the ground of insufficiency of funds vide memo

dated 21.03.2000, 27.03.2000 and 29.03.2000.         A legal notice was

served upon the petitioner by the complainant on 10.04.2000 calling

upon the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.4,63,060/-, i.e., the

amount of the cheque but the petitioners failed to make the payment

within the time prescribed and, therefore, the said complaint was

filed.

2.       It is the case of the petitioner, that the cheques were dishonored

because the vacuum cleaners supplied by the complainant were not

up to the mark and there were shortages with respect to the supply

and it is, therefore, a request was made by them with the petitioner

that the cheques may not be presented till the proper quantity and

quality of the goods are replaced with the defective ones. This letter

is dated 15.06.1999. Even if, for the sake of arguments, it is assumed



Crl.M.C.2719/2004                                                  Page 2 of 3
 that such a letter was written by the petitioner, it would be a question

of evidence and it will have to be proved by the petitioner, during the

course of trial, that such a letter was written and that also before the

presentation of the cheque. Defenses cannot be the basis of a petition

under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing of the complaint.

3.      Thus, I do not find any merit in the petition. Even otherwise,

nobody has come forward to argue the matter on behalf of the

petitioner. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution

as well as on merits for the reasons stated above.

4.      A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court, who shall proceed

with the trial in accordance with law.

5.      Interim orders are vacated.




                                           MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 anb