Ayush Pande And Ors vs M/S Delhi Steel And Cement
2022 Latest Caselaw 16490 P&H

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

121
                                              CRM-M-50373-2022
                                              Date of Decision: 12.12.2022


Ayush Pande and others                                      .... Petitioners

                                Versus

M/s Delhi Steel and Cement                                 .... Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR VERMA

Present: -   Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.


ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of compliant

bearing No.NACT/50278/2019 titled as 'M/s Delhi Steel and Cement Vs.

M/s Nice Projects Limited and others' filed under Sections 138, 141 and

142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the N.I. Act') as

well as summoning order dated 18.01.2020.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant

has filed the above-said complaint against 13 persons including the

petitioners alleging that the respondent/complainant is engaged in the

business of cement, steel, sariya etc. The accused persons approached the

respondent/complainant for doing business with them. On 12.09.2018 a

mutual settlement between respondent/complainant and the accused was

executed and according to the settlement the accused issued a cheque

dated 03.09.2019 amounting to Rs.15,60,251/- in favour of the

respondent/complainant for their legal lability. On presentation of the

1 of 3

said cheque, the same was dishonoured by the bank with remarks 'Funds

Insufficient". The respondent/complainant had got served a legal notice

dated 16.09.2019 upon the accused for paying the amount of

Rs.15,60,251/- within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice.

However, the accused had not paid the money to the

respondent/complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The

petitioners have not signed any mutual settlement or any other agreement

with the respondent. The petitioner No.2 and 3 got to know about the

present complaint from petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 got to know

about the present complaint from other Directors. The trial Court wrongly

passed summoning order dated 18.01.2020 without application of mind.

No specific role has been mentioned against the petitioners. There is only

vague and general allegations against the petitioners. It is necessary for

the respondents to aver in the impugned complaint that at the time of

commission of alleged offence, the petitioners were in-charge of and

responsible for the conduct of business of the company. Without this

averment being made in the complaint, the requirements of Section 141

cannot be said to be satisfied. In support of his arguments, learned

counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgments of

Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in CRA No.529 of 2017 arising out of

SLP (Crl.) No.10899 of 2015 tilted as 'Ashoke Mal Bafna Vs. M/s

Upper India Steel Mfg and Engg. Co. Ltd.' decided on 06.03.2017 and

CRA Nos.1130-31 of 2003 titled as 'K.K. Ahuja Vs. V.K. Vora and

2 of 3

another' decided on 06.07.2009.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone

thorough the paper-book.

A perusal of the complaint, as well as the impugned order

dated 18.01.2020, shows that prima-facie all ingredients of offence under

Section 138 of the N.I. Act are made out, inasmuch as the cheque which

was issued by the petitioners was dishonoured on presentation due to

insufficiency of funds. Statutory notice in this regard was issued to the

petitioners and after expiry of the stipulated period under the Act and

upon failure of the petitioners to make the payment of the cheque amount,

the complaint has been filed.

In so far as the contentions of learned counsel are concerned,

they would at the best raise disputed questions of fact which would be

gone into by the trial Court after recording evidence in that regard.

Moreover, the summoning order was passed on 18.01.2020 and the

petitioners have filed the present petition on 21.10.2022 after a delay of

02 years and 10 months.

In view of above, the present petition stands dismissed.

12.12.2022                                  (ASHOK KUMAR VERMA)
kothiyal                                           JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                      Yes/No




                                3 of 3