DEEPAK VIG Vs. AVDESH MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. read with section 227of the Constitution of India is preferred against the impugned order dated 23.12.2009 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby in a complaint case under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short 'the Act'), filed by the respondent herein, he ordered for issuance of summons to the petitioner.

(2.) Though the facts of the case are plain and simple, but, there is an interesting legal issue. By virtue of lease agreement dated 14.08.2008 arrived at between the petitioner/lessee and respondent/lessor the property of respondent situated at E-582 Greater Kailash - II, New Delhi was taken by the petitioner for the purpose of running a guest house for a period of five years on an agreed monthly rent of 19.00 lakh subject to increase in the rent as per said agreement. The lease was to come into force from 01.09.2008. The lease stipulated a lock-in period of one year before the contract could be terminated. One month's rent was to be payable in advance by the lessee/petitioner in case of termination of the lease deed. The relevant portions of the lease deed dated 14 th August, 2008 read as follows:

(3.) In pursuance of the said agreement, the petitioner gave five cheques of the amounts of 5.00 lakh, 57.00 lakh, 16.00 lakh, 20.00 lakh and 52.00 lakh to the respondent. [Out of these five cheques, three cheques of 57.00 lakh, 16.00 lakh and 20.00 lakh were dishonoured on presentation by the bankers of the petitioner with the remarks "insufficient funds"]. Fresh cheques of these amounts were issued by the petitioner. Out of these three fresh cheques, two cheques of 16.00 & 20.00 lakh respectively dated 04.08.2009 and 11.08.2009 again got dishonoured on account of "payment stopped". The respondent/complainant issued two separate legal notices to the petitioner in respect of these two dishonoured cheques. These notices were replied by the petitioner on 24.08.2009. Thereafter, the respondent filed the complaint case against the petitioner under section 138 of the Act, the cognizance of which was taken by the MM and the impugned order was passed summoning the petitioner.