Delhi High Court
M/S. Texcel Infotech (P) Ltd. vs State Of Nct & Anr. on 14 November, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th November, 2014
+ CRL. M.C. 1169/2013
M/S. TEXCEL INFOTECH (P) LTD. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. Ashok Anand with Mr. S.
Udaya Kumar Sagar and Mr.
Shwetank Sailakwal, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State.
Mr. Upinder Dhindsa, Advocate
for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against summoning order dated 30.07.2012 passed by
learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC
No.472/12 titled as „Anil Khosla vs. Texcel Infotech (P) Ltd.‟.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that
the respondent No.2/ complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as „NI Act‟)
against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that the petitioner took
a short term loan of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs) from the
complainant for a period of 90 days for purchasing software licenses for
LPR System from M/s. Syac and issued cheque Nos.626972, 626973,
626974 for Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) each and 626975 for
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand), all dated 01.11.2011 and drawn on
Corporation Bank, Secunderabad Branch. On presentation the said
cheques were returned with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer".
Despite service of statutory notice dated 25.04.2012, the petitioner failed
to make payment.
3. After recording pre-summoning evidence, the petitioner was
summoned for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act vide impugned
order dated 30.07.2012.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions.
The first submission is that the respondent No.2 presented the cheques
after expiry of one year and the second submission is that the complaint is
barred by limitation. The copies of cheque returning memos have been
placed on record. The cheque Nos.626972, 626973, 626974 for
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs) each and 626975 for Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand) all dated 01.11.2011 and drawn on Corporation
Bank, Secunderabad Branch were returned by the banker of the petitioner
vide return memo dated 24.03.2012 with the remarks "payment stopped
by drawer", which shows that the cheques were deposited by the
petitioner within the stipulated period.
5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the
cheque was deposited within the period of limitation. It is suffice to
mention that as per complaint, notice dated 25.04.2012 was served on the
petitioner on 27.04.2012. The complaint under Section 138 of NI Act
was filed on 21.06.2012. He also submits that the Courts of learned
Metropolitan Magistrate were closed from 11.06.2012 to 20.06.2012 and
the complaints were filed on the reopening of the Court, therefore, the
complaint is within the limitation.
6. So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the complaint is barred by limitation is concerned, it is
suffice to mention that it is open to the petitioner to take the plea of
limitation before the trial court and the trial court will consider the same
in accordance with law.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is without any
merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Crl. M.A. No.3623/2013
The application is dismissed as infructuous.
(VED PRAKASH VAISH)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 14, 2014
hs
