S KRISHAN SHARMA Vs. HADA DEVELOPERS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. Krishan Sharma, the petitioner herein vide this petition under Section 482 CrPC is seeking quashing of proceedings of Complaint Case No. 4353/2008 in complaint titled as M/s. Hada Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Krishan Sharma, pending in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka, New Delhi.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that respondent M/s. Hada Developers Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of N.I.Act and Section 420 IPC against the petitioner claiming that in June, 2004, the petitioner along with M/s. 3rd Dimension of Architecture Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. Nitin Sharma approached the respondent/complainant in June, 2004 for a short term loan of ' 6 lakhs, which was sanctioned and disbursed as per the terms and conditions detailed in loan agreement dated 17 th June, 2004, which was signed by the petitioner, Nitin Sharma and the respondent/complainant. The amount of loan was to be repaid along with 20% interest per annum in 18 monthly instalments of ' 43,333/- from June, 2004 to November, 2005. It is claimed in the complaint that in order to discharge the aforesaid legally enforceable debt, the petitioner/accused issued a cheque bearing No. 962976 dated 15th December, 2005 for ' 7,80,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. The cheque, when presented to the drawee bank through the complainant's bank, was returned back dishonoured with the remarks "Funds Insufficient". Respondent served the petitioner with requisite demand notice under Section 138, N.I.Act, calling upon him to pay the cheque amount. The petitioner, however, failed to comply with the demand notice. This led to filing of the complaint under Section 138, N.I.Act and Section 420 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint qua him is liable to be quashed for the reason that he only stood guarantee for repayment of loan advanced to M/s. 3rd Dimension of Architecture Pvt. Ltd. and admittedly, the cheque in question was issued as a security for the aforesaid loan. Expanding on the argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the copy of the statement of CW1 S.K.Bahri, Authorized Representative of the complainant company, particularly, his cross examination wherein he has, inter alia, stated thus: