Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalvinder Singh vs M/S Solar First Energy Pvt. Ltd on 5 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000582
211 2024:PHHC:000582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46742-2019
Date of Decision :05.01.2024
DALVINDER SINGH .....Petitioner
VERSUS
M/S SOLAR FIRST ENERGY PVT. LTD. .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present : Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mandeep Singh Sachdev, Advocate,
for the respondent.
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
1. Through the instant petition, prayer is made for quashing of
complaint case bearing No.NACT/4370/2019, dated 05.09.2019
(Annexure P-6) and the summoning order dated 10.09.2019 (Annexure P-
9), vide which the petitioner has been summoned to face trial for the
commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
2. The gist of allegations against the petitioner are that he had
purchased a solar power generating system, of 3 KW capacity from the
respondent-company (complainant) on credit basis and the total value of
the said unit was Rs.2,15,000/-, inclusive of all taxes. The Tax Invoice
dated 30.01.2019 in respect of the aforesaid amount was also issued to
the petitioner.
3. There is no wrangle amongst the contesting parties
that against the tax invoice (supra) the petitioner had paid a sum of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000582
Rs.1,50,000/-, leaving a balance of Rs.65,000/-.
4. The petitioner, in order to discharge his balance financial
liability (supra), issued a cheque bearing no.055955, dated 30.07.2019
for a sum of Rs.43,000/- in favour of the respondent/ complainant
company, drawn on Central Bank of India, Dugri Road, Basant Avenue,
Ludhiana. However, on presentation of the said cheque, the same was
dishonoured by the bank concerned, the reason being that, the petitioner
had stopped payment of the cheque.
5. The dishonour of cheque led the aggrieved to institute the
impugned complaint against the petitioner, whereupon, the learned trial
Court concerned, vide impugned order dated 10.09.2019 (Annexure P-9),
summoned the petitioner to face trial.
6. At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 02.11.2019,
this Court had directed the petitioner to cause appearance before the trial
court in pursuance of the summoning order (supra). It is not under
dispute that the petitioner, in compliance of the aforesaid order of this
Court had caused appearance before the trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to throw a
challenge to the impugned complaint as well as the summoning order
(supra), has made twofold submissions, i.e. there is no outstanding legal
liability to discharge against the petitioner, as the issuance of cheque was
based upon a contingent condition and that condition is yet to be fulfilled,
therefore, no legal liability whatsoever became levied upon him to
discharge such liability, which could invite the petitioner to
face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000582
secondly, that he had duly replied to the statutory legal notice served
upon him by the respondent/complainant company through Annexure P-5
and the complainant concealed that reply and nowhere mentioned in the
complaint.
8. He has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by
this Court in "Baldev Singh vs. State of Punjab and another" 2006(1)
RCR (Crl.) 119 and "Richa Sharma alias Happy vs. State of Punjab"
2001(1) RCR (Crl.) 438.
9. Furthermore, to strengthen his arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioner, submits that in case, the impugned complaint has been
filed on concealment of vital facts, the same is required to be quashed by
invoking the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
submits that since the issues, which have been raised by learned counsel
for petitioner, are disputed question of facts, therefore, the same are
required to be proved by way of adduction of evidence, by both the
parties, at the relevant stage before the trial Court.
11. He further submits that insofar as, the issue of conditional
agreement is concerned, it was the petitioner, who was to apply for the
subsidy, however, he failed to apply for the subsidy, therefore, because of
his default, the right of the complainant can't be defeated. He further
submits that the fact of receipt of reply to the legal notice has been
specifically denied in the reply.
12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the contesting
litigants and have gone through the record(s).
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000582
13. The issue that the cheque was based upon a contingent
condition, is required to be proved by leading cogent evidence, by both
the parties, before the learned trial Court concerned. This Court, merely
upon reading the conditions attached with the invoice, cannot conclude
that the other conditions, which the petitioner is required to fulfill, have
been fulfilled.
14. Insofar as the issue of non-disclosure of reply to the legal
notice at the time of filing the impugned complaint by the complainant is
concerned, it is also highly disputed question of fact, as the
respondent/complainant has denied the factum of receipt of the reply,
therefore, at this stage, this Court refrains from interfering in the instant
matter, leaving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the plea(s), which have
been raised before this Court, before the learned trial Concerned, at an
appropriate stage.
15. Learned trial Court concerned shall without being influenced
from the observations, made hereinabove by this Court, decide the
complaint on its own merits.
16. Consequently, the instant petition is dismissed with the
aforesaid observations.
(KULDEEP TIWARI)
January 05, 2024 JUDGE
dharamvir
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:000582
4 of 4
