SHIV KUMAR VERMA Vs. MANOJ PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the Petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying inter alia for quashing of complaint case No. 2057/01 and the summoning order dated 16.01.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, on a complaint filed by the Respondent under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that on 17.11.2005, the Respondent filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Act against one, Mr. Dalip Kumar Verma and the Petitioners, who are his brothers. The case of the Respondent as set out in the complaint is that the accused persons had certain business transactions with him, for which they owed him a sum of 30 lacs. Out of the aforesaid amount, the accused persons had paid a sum of 11 lacs, leaving the balance sum of 19 lacs. Subsequently, the first accused, Mr. Dalip Kumar Verma had issued a cheque for 15 lacs for part discharge of his debt/liability which, when presented through the bankers of the Respondent/complainant, was returned with the remarks "Payment Stopped By Drawer". On receiving the dishonoured cheque, the complainant/Respondent issued a legal notice dated 30.09.2005 to the accused but the amount, subject matter of the cheque, was not paid within the stipulated period under the Act, thus compelling him to file a complaint against the accused under the Act.

(3.) It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the complaint filed by the Respondent against his clients is not maintainable and the summons issued to the Petitioners vide order dated 16.01.2006 are liable to be quashed as the learned Metropolitan Magistrate failed to appreciate the fact that the cheque in question was not issued by the Petitioners, but by accused No. 1, Mr. Dalip Kumar Verma in his personal capacity. In support of the said submission, he hands over a photocopy of the said cheque, which is taken on the record. It is submitted that a perusal of the complaint and the cheque shows that no case whatsoever is made out against the Petitioners as they were not the drawers of the cheque. It is contended that the Respondent/complainant has deliberately roped in the Petitioners, who are senior police officers and have nothing to do with the transaction between him and the accused No. 1. In support of the aforesaid submission, counsel for the Petitioners relies on the judgments in the case of Suresh Jindal v. State and Anr., 2008 154 DLT 588 and Lalit Jain v. State, 2010 4 AD 429.