Delhi High Court
Purnangini Trehan vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 24 July, 2018
$~34 to 37 & 39
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 24th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 2699/2016 & Crl.M.A. 11579/2016
PURNANGINI TREHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chugh, Mr. Amit &
Mr. Pankaj Pareek, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State.
Mr. V.S. Panwar & Mr. Vikas
Walia, Advs. for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2729/2016 & Crl.M.A. 11672/2016
VIRENDER MOHAN TREHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chugh, Mr. Amit &
Mr. Pankaj Pareek, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State.
Mr. V.S. Panwar & Mr. Vikas
Walia, Advs. for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2730/2016 & Crl.M.A. 11674/2016
VIRENDER MOHAN TERHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chugh, Mr. Amit &
Mr. Pankaj Pareek, Advs.
versus
Crl. M.C. No.2699/2016 & conn. Page 1 of 5
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State.
Mr. V.S. Panwar & Mr. Vikas
Walia, Advs. for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 2731/2016 & Crl.M.A. 11676/2016
PURNANGINI TREHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chugh, Mr. Amit &
Mr. Pankaj Pareek, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State.
Mr. V.S. Panwar & Mr. Vikas
Walia, Advs. for R-2.
+ CRL.M.C. 3629/2016 & Crl.M.A. 15301/2016
PURANANGINI TREHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Chugh, Mr. Amit &
Mr. Pankaj Pareek, Advs.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the
State.
Mr. V.S. Panwar & Mr. Vikas
Walia, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The five petitions at hand have been presented invoking the
inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) to pray for quashing of the
summoning orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in criminal
complaint nos. 118/2016, 114/2016, 74/2016, 75/2016, 83/2016 on
11.01.2016, 11.01.2016, 06.01.2016, 06.01.2016, 09.05.2016
respectively, each instituted by the second respondent, alleging
offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,
respecting five different cheques statedly drawn and issued by the
petitioners to discharge their liability towards the second respondent
(complainant) which, upon presentation, were returned unpaid, the
petitioners inspite of being served with the notices of demand in the
wake of such return of cheques, having failed to make the payment.
The petitioners point out that the cheques in question were never
issued in favour of the second respondent.
2. A perusal of the five complaint cases from which these petitions
arise would show that the second respondent (complainant) has
alleged that it is a reputed finance company and had extended certain
loan to Paras Equipment and Engineering Ltd. by executing a loan
agreement, bearing no. U10095, the petitioners herein having stood
guarantee for its repayment. Alleging default in repayment of the
loan, the complainant has averred that the petitioners in discharge of
their liability had issued the cheques in question in its favour, they
bearing numbers 037960 dated 28.10.2015 for Rs. 47,89,643/-;
139039 dated 28.10.2015, for Rs. 49,97,467/-; 139041 dated
28.10.2015 for 45,45,893/-; 037961 dated 28.10.2015 for Rs.
45,45,893/- and 037959 dated 29.10.2015 for Rs. 49,97,467/- against
their account with State Bank of Patiala but when the said cheques
were presented, they were returned unpaid.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the
cheques on the basis of which the complaint cases have been filed
were issued in the name of Unitel Credit Pvt. Ltd. and not in favour of
the second respondent. This fact is conceded by the counsel for the
second respondent and is also confirmed by copies of the said cheques
which are filed with these petitions.
4. The explanation of the second respondent, however, is that
Unitel Credit Pvt. Ltd. which was the lender for purposes of
transactions from which these complaints arise had merged with the
complainant company as per the scheme of amalgamation which was
approved by this Court in company petition no. 320/2010 by order
dated 20.01.2011. It is stated that the cheques in question thus issued
pursuant to the loan transaction entered into, prior to the filing of these
complaint cases, represented debt owed to it (complainant company)
and legitimately claimed by it.
5. But then, he also fairly conceded that the above facts do not
form part of the averments in the criminal complaint cases. There is, in
the above fact no explanation in any of the five complaint cases as to
by what authority the cheques had been presented for encashment by
the second respondent (the complainant) even though they had been
issued in favour of another entity. Similar is the deficiency in the
notices of demand and the evidence adduced at the pre-summoning
inquiry in each case.
6. In the above facts and circumstances, there being no case made
out of the cheques representing "debt or other liability" due to the
complainant by the petitioners, the complaint cases alleging offences
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of
afore-mentioned cheques cannot be maintained by the second
respondent.
7. The continuation of the above-said proceedings would be an
abuse of the process of law. Hence, the petitions are allowed. The
impugned orders are set aside. The proceedings in above-mentioned
criminal complaint cases against the petitioners are quashed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY24, 2018
nk
