GVPR ENGINEERS LIMITED Vs. A.K. TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GVPR Engineers Limited, its Managing Director and Directors through this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure are seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Complaint Case No. 441/1 of 2009 titled "A.K. Tiwari v. GVPR Engineers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors".

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition are that Respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the Petitioners, claiming that he was employed by the Petitioner No. 1 company as Vice President with effect from 07.05.2008 and his services were terminated on 25th December, 2008. On termination of services of the Respondent/complainant, the accused company issued a cheque No. 949100 dated 27th December, 2008 for 2,71,700/- from its Account No. ANWB-000851000103 maintained at ICICI Bank, TGV Mansion, Kheiratabad Branch, Hyderabad as part payment of his dues. Aforesaid cheque, when presented by the complainant in his bank at Delhi, was returned by the bank with the remarks "Insufficient Funds". This fact was brought to the notice of the accused by the Respondent/complainant and on the advice of the accused, complainant again presented aforesaid cheque in his account maintained in ICICI Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The cheque however was dishonoured and returned by the bank with the remarks "insufficient funds". This information was received by the complainant on 29th January, 2009. The complainant, thus, sent a statutory notice of demand under Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to the accused persons (Petitioners) through Fax, E-mail and Registered A.D. Post. Despite of service of said notice, Petitioners failed to pay the amount of cheque to the complainant within the statutory period of 15 days, which led to filing of the complaint against the Petitioners.

(3.) The Petitioners are seeking quashing of the petition on three counts. Firstly it is contended that soon after the filing of the complaint, the Petitioner company sent a demand draft for the cheque amount to the Respondent but the Respondent, vide a legal notice dated 15.04.2009 returned the cheque stating that on the failure of the Petitioners to pay the cheque amount within the statutory period after the receipt of demand notice, the offence was complete. It was, however, stated in the notice that the Respondent was anxious to settle the entire dispute i.e. the dispute relating to the dishonored cheque and Respondent's other claim against the Petitioner company. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that from the above, it is evident that motive behind the prosecution is to exert pressure upon the Petitioners to accede to unreasonable demand of the Respondent. As such, the complaint, being mala fide, is liable to be quashed.