RANJITA MITTAL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the Criminal Complaint No.3002/2011 and order dated 31.05.2011 passed by the learned MM, whereby the petitioners prayer for compounding the offence made vide application under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act for short), was rejected.

(2.) In the above mentioned complaint filed by the respondent, it has been averred that in the year 2007, a payment of Rs. 4,50,000/- was made to the petitioners as part payment for purchasing a flat in the project named Shivkala SRS Glamour , which was to be developed by the company owned by the petitioners, named as M/s Advantage Engineering & Developers (P) Ltd.. The possession of the flat was to be handed over to the respondent by October 2009, but as per the respondent, even the construction did not begin on the site of the project by the year 2009. Consequently the respondent asked the petitioners for the refund of the amount deposited by him and after various meetings, the respondent was handed over a cheque bearing no. 379512 dated 07.02.2010 amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- in partial discharge of their liability. The said cheque was dishonoured on its presentation with remarks exceeds arrangement . Further, the said cheque was again presented by the respondent for encashment after assurance from the petitioners, but it was dishonoured again. It has been averred that despite the service of a Demand notice dated 31.03.2010, the petitioners failed to make the payment against the dishonoured cheque as well as the rest of the due amount and hence the respondent was constrained to file a complaint in the Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for the quashing of the complaint and consequent proceedings and has assailed the impugned order of the ld. MM, rejecting the application of the petitioners under Section 147 of NI Act for compounding the offence on the ground that as the petitioners had tendered the amount of the cheque, the trial Court erred in disallowing the application of the petitioners for compounding the offence. Relaince has been placed on Damodar S.Prabhu vs. Syed Baba Lal,2010 160 DLT 1 (SC) and Hitek Industries ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Delhi & Anr., 2010 173 DLT 712 .It has also been submitted that the petitioners though being Directors of the M/s Advantage Engineering & Developers (P) Ltd. are neither incharge of day to day affairs of the Company nor are responsible for any decision of the Company and are hence not liable for prosecution for the dishonor of the cheque in question.