M/S Talent Tele Times Ltd. & Ors. vs M/S Dharamputra Builders P. Ltd.
2012 Latest Caselaw 2509 Del

*             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.

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

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

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

/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,

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

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

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