REBBY VARGHESE Vs. HAIER APPLIANCES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing a Criminal Complaint Case No. 241/N/10/2006 filed by the respondent No. 1 company/complainant against the petitioner and his two brothers, all Directors of M/s Majstic Agencies Pvt. Ltd., for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'Act') pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts.

(2.) The limited grievance of the petitioner herein is that the complaint qua him is liable to be quashed as the contents thereof even if taken to be true, do not fulfill the ingredient of the offence against him.

(3.) The case of the respondent No. 1 company/complainant as set out in the complaint is that the accused, who were Directors of M/s Majestic Agencies Pvt. Ltd., were appointed as one of its Dealers, for the sale of its electronic products and pursuant to an order for supply of some such products, marketed by the respondent/complainant, the goods were supplied to the accused from time to time and regular invoices were raised upon them; the goods received were duly acknowledged by the accused and further, they handed over a cheque dated 18.08.2006, for Rs. 20,97,144/- drawn on Syndicate Bank Shanmugham Road (Main), Ernakulam Branch, as payment for the supplies made, which when presented by the respondent/complainant to its bankers, got dishonoured with the remarks, "insufficient funds". After completing the legal formalities by way of issuance of notice of demand etc., the complainant filed the aforesaid complaint in October, 2006, on which notice was issued by the learned MM and appearance is stated to have been entered by the accused. Counsel for the petitioner states that initially the accused Nos. 1 & 2, brothers of the petitioner and Directors in the company appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, along with the petitioner/accused No. 3, however, on account of his non-appearance, later on non-bailable warrants have recently been issued against the petitioner.