Delhi High Court
Baljit Singh Redhu & Anr. vs Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 12 September, 2018
$~14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 12th September, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 3128/2016 & Crl.M.A. 13428/2016
BALJIT SINGH REDHU & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Surender Singh, Adv.
versus
NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for
the State.
Ms. Sunakshi Gupta, Adv. for
R-2 along with POA holder
Mr. Sunil Aggarwal of R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) has been filed seeking quashing of the
proceedings arising out of criminal complaint case (no. 113/1/2016)
alleging offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881 which was concededly presented by the second respondent (the
complainant) on 06.01.2016. A perusal of the criminal complaint,
copy whereof has been submitted, would show that it is based on fact
of no payment having been made inspite of notice of demand issued
on 17.12.2015 in the wake of dishonour of cheque bearing no. 002460
dated 19.11.2015 for Rupees Three lakhs drawn on Dena Bank, Jind
Branch, in favour of the second respondent (complainant), the said
cheque having statedly been issued by the petitioner (the accused) on
account of liability due. It is clear from the averments in the criminal
complaint and the copy of demand notice dated 17.12.2015, as indeed
the counter affidavit of the second respondent that parties had been
involved in some commercial transactions, the claim for amount by
the complainant having arisen therefrom.
2. It has been brought out in the counter affidavit of the complaint,
as is also conceded by the petitioner (accused) that aside from the said
cheque bearing no. 002460, there were certain other cheques which
had been issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, such
other cheques including cheque bearing nos. 002461 and 002462 each
of Rupees Three lakhs. Going by the averments in the counter
affidavit, the other two cheques i.e. bearing nos. 002461 and 002462
were presented on or about 14.12.2015 and were also dishonoured
similar to the dishonor of the cheque bearing no. 002460, on which
account the present proceedings were initiated founded on the demand
notice dated 17.12.2015. Crucially, in the demand notice dated
17.12.2015, there is no reference made to the other cheques which
were presented on or about 14.12.2015 and were similarly
dishounoured. The complaint is also conspicuously silent in this
regard.
3. The petitioner has shown copy of his reply dated 03.01.2016
sent in reply to the demand notice, inter alia, stating that, upon receipt
of the demand notice dated 17.12.2015, he had transferred an amount
of Rupees Three lakhs, it being the value of the cheque in question in
the account of the complainant by NEFT No. P15122906117893 on
29.12.2015 within fifteen days of the receipt of notice. In the
complaint which was presented on 06.01.2016, there is no reference to
such amount having been received by bank transfer.
4. In the counter affidavit, however, mercifully, the complainant
does acknowledge receipt of Rupees three lakhs by NEFT transfer on
29.12.2015 though taking the position that the said amount received
had been "adjusted" against the claim arising out of dishonor of the
two other cheques bearing nos. 002461 and 002462 respectively.
Since the transfer of the money through banking channel (NEFT) on
29.12.2015 was with a specific reference to the cheque bearing no.
002460, it could not have been the choice or prerogative of the
complainant (the payee) to appropriate the same against the liability of
the accused arising out of dishonor of other two cheques, particularly
when he was conspicuously silent, in regard to such other liabilities, in
the demand notice dated 17.12.2015, even though to its knowledge,
the said other cheques had also since been presented, on or about
14.12.2015, and were meeting the same fate as the other cheque.
5. The crucial fact of payment of value of the cheque within the
stipulated period was clearly concealed from the criminal court in the
criminal complaint on which process was issued. The said payment, in
fact, renders the complaint not founded on true facts. The payment
having been made pursuant to the notice of demand, no offence could
stand constituted.
6. The petition is thus, allowed. The proceedings in the criminal
case arising out of criminal complaint referred to above are hereby
quashed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
nk
