ARPAN JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 4322/2020 filed under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') as well as the summoning order dtd. 25/3/2021 passed by the learned MM-05 (NI Act), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned summoning order was passed without application of mind. He has primarily contended that the cheque in question was materially altered by the complainant by changing the date for revalidation without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners. He has further submitted that in view of the mandate of Sec. 87 NI Act, the cheque had became void. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Veera Exports v. T. Kalavathy reported as (2002) 1 SCC 97.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in the present case, the offence under Sec. 138 NI Act was not made out as the cheque in question was initially honoured and the amount credited in the account of the complainant. However, later, on protest lodged by the petitioners, the amount was transferred back from the complainant's account to that of petitioner No. 1. An SMS received from the State Bank of India is also placed on record in this regard. Lastly, it is contended that the cheque in question being signed by petitioner No. 2 and no specific allegations having been levelled against petitioner No. 1, the Trial Court ought not to have summoned petitioner No. 1.