Vandan Bali vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 4929 Del

$~R-25
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                           Date of Decision: July 13, 2015
+                   CRL.M.C. 2712/2012
      VANDAN BALI                                      ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Advocate
                    versus

      STATE & ANR.                                         .....Respondents
                             Through:   Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public
                                        Prosecutor for respondent-State
                                        Mr. Rajneesh Sood and Mr.
                                        Gurpreet Singh, Advocates for
                                        respondent No.2
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                          JUDGMENT

% (ORAL) Quashing of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pertaining to dishonour of cheque of `80,000/- issued by petitioner in terms of Training-cum-Employment Agreement of 19th March, 2010, is sought on merits in this petition.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had placed reliance upon Apex Court's decisions in M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. IV (2014) SLT 321 and HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida & Anr. 2015 SCC Online SC 233 to submit that the cheque in question was issued as security cheque, which does not come within the purview of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant strongly refutes the contention of petitioner that the cheque

CRL.M.C.2712/2012 Page 1 in question was a security cheque and submits that the decisions in M/s. Indus Airways (supra) and HMT Watches (supra) have no application to the facts of the instant case. Reliance is placed upon Apex Court's decision in Anil Kumar Sawhney v. Gulshan Rai 1993 (4) SCALE 114 to submit that the cheque in question was admittedly undated and so, it cannot be termed as a post-dated cheque and it remains a bill of exchange only and when the date was put on the cheque in question, there was an existing liability of petitioner as he had left the employment of respondent without any justified reason and so, in terms of the Training- cum-Employment Agreement, respondent-complainant has a right to forfeit the amount of the cheque in question.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the complaint, the Training-cum- Employment Agreement in question and the decisions cited, I find that the reliance placed by learned counsel for petitioner upon decisions in M/s. Indus Airways (supra) and HMT Watches (supra) is clearly misplaced as in the instant case, the cheque in question was undated and when the date was put thereon, a prima facie liability on the part of petitioner to pay the cheque amount existed.

In the considered opinion of this Court, no case for quashing of the complaint in question is made out. This petition is dismissed while refraining to express any opinion on merits lest it may prejudice petitioner at trial, which be concluded with expedition.

                                                           (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                              JUDGE
JULY 13, 2015
s

CRL.M.C.2712/2012                                                     Page 2