[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Gupta Hardware Private Limited And 3 Ors on 10 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010022582016
2026:GAU-AS:1857
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.Pet./608/2016
DR DHANI RAM BARUAH HEART INSTITUTE AND RESEARCH CENTRE and
ANR.
SONAPUR-782402
DIST- KAMRUP
ASSAM
2: DR. DHANI RAM BARUAH
S/O LT. ANANDI RAM BARUAH
R/O DR. BARUAH HEART CITY AND CITY OF HUMAN GENOME
SONAPUR-782402
DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM
VERSUS
GUPTA HARDWARE PRIVATE LIMITED and 3 ORS.
DR. RP ROAD
DISPUR
POST OFFICE AND P.S. DISPUR
GHY-6
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
COMPLAINANT THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER CUM
MARKETING MANAGER SRI MANAB LAHKAR
2:RAJENDRA KUMAR GUPTA
S/O LT. RAM KUMAR GUPTA
DIRECTOR OF GUPTA HARDWARE PVT. LTD.
DR. RP ROAD
DISPUR
P.O. and P.S. DISPUR
GHY-6
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/5
3:THE STATE OF ASSAM
THROUGH THE LEARNED P.P.
4:CHANDRA KANTA
S/O LT. PRITHU RAM KALITA
R/O NAHARANI PATH
HATIGAON
DISPUR
GHY-6
DIST- KAMRUP METRO
ASSAM
------------
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN
For the Petitioners : Mr. T.N. Sreenivasan, Adv.
For the Respondents : Mr. Ms. P. Gupta, Adv.
: Mr. M.J. Hazarika, Adv.
: Mr. M.P. Goswami, APP, Assam.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
10.02.2026
Heard Mr. T.N. Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard
Ms. P. Gupta, learned counsel and Mr. M.J. Hazarika, learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor
for the State of Assam.
2. By this petition filed under Section 482 read with Section 397 and 401 of
the Cr.PC, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the proceedings of the
complaint case being Complaint Case No. 492C/2013 registered under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act pending before the Court of Judicial
Page No.# 3/5
Magistrate First Class, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati, Assam. The petitioners
have also challenged the Order dated 25.04.2016, by which the learned Court
of Judicial Magistrate First Class has registered the petition of the petitioners,
wherein they prayed for dropping of the proceedings of the complaint case on
the ground that payment have already been made to the complainant.
3. The complaint dated 26.02.2013 lodged by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2
against the petitioners reflects that the petitioners owes around Rs. 10 Lakhs to
the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and in discharged of the said debts, the petitioners
issued account payee Cheque bearing Cheque No. 527350 dated 14.12.2012 for
Rs. 1 Lakh which was dishonoured by the drawee Bank, i.e., Axis Bank Limited
for the reason "Funds Insufficient" and returned the aforesaid Cheque along
with the Cheque return Memo dated 15.12.2012. Thereafter, the complainant
made a demand for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs by sending
a demand notice on 10.01.2013 which was received by the petitioners but the
petitioners failed to make the payment of the Cheque within the stipulated 15
(fifteen) days period, but had sent one reply through their counsel stating that
they have received the aforesaid notice and due to temporary financial crisis,
they could not arrange the funds and since the petitioners could not make the
payments, the respondents instituted a case under Section 138 of the N.I Act
read with Section 141 of the said Act and the respondents have also lodged the
present complaint.
4. Mr. T.N. Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he
has filed an application before the Court of SDJM No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati on
05.08.2014, showing inter alia that the petitioners have made payments to the
respondents to the extent of Rs. 10,78,485/- in connection with three different
Page No.# 4/5
cases and he has narrated the Cheque number, the date on which it was issued
as well as the cash receipt that he had allegedly given to the respondents. To
substantiate his arguments, he has also placed the copy of the Pass Book,
wherein it is shown that the Cheque was drawn in favour of Gupta Hardware,
i.e., the respondents on 28.02.2013 by Cheque No. 54627, an amount of Rs. 2
Lakhs was given to the respondents. Thereafter, he has also annexed the copy
of the Pass Book, wherein it is shown that on 13.07.2012, he had issued an
amount of Rs. 1 Lakh to the respondents by Cheque No. 77558. He has also
annexed the receipt of the cash amount given to the tune of Rs. 1 Lakh on
16.09.2013, wherein a seal is seen on Gupta Hardware, i.e., the respondents.
Similar is with another Rs. 1 Lakh given to Gupta Hardware on 21.09.2013 as
well as Rs. 5,78,485/- in the name of Gupta Hardware and as such, he prays
that the entire amount is being paid back to the respondents and accordingly
have prayed for quashing of the instant complaint petition.
5. Ms. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 however
submits that the said Cheque, as well as the cash amount was not in connection
with the transaction that is mentioned in the complaint petition. Those
payments, according to her, is in connection with some other transactions. She
has also filed an objection petition before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Kamrup (Metro), wherein it is clearly stated that the petitioners have not
settled the account till date against the Cheque in question against which the
petitioners had also filed a reply stating inter alia that there were three cases
against him for three charges and has further stated that the appearance of the
accused is not essential in the instant case because of the fact that he, from the
very beginning has submitted that he would pay the amount of the Cheque to
the complainant and has accordingly paid and that there are no more
Page No.# 5/5
admissible dues.
6. Mr. T.N. Sreenivasan, learned counsel for the petitioners also stated in the
said petition that the Cheque amount was in connection with the transaction
mentioned in the complaint petition, which is however disputed by Ms. Gupta,
learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
7. Since it is disputed as to the amount of money paid to the respondents
and that the same is in connection with the transaction in question as
mentioned in the complaint petition, this Court does not deem it fit to consider
quashing of the present complaint petition. Further, it is directed that the parties
may approach the Trial Court and the Trial Court would consider according to
law including the fact as to whether any valid compromise has been reached
between the parties as far as the amount in issue is concerned.
8. The Criminal Petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
