ICICI BANK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, ICICI Bank Ltd. under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the order dated 5.2.2011 passed in Complaint Case titled ICICI Bank -vs- Ved Pal pending in the Court of Tarun Chandiok [the then MM, Dwarka] and the proceedings emanating therefrom. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company, duly registered with the Registrar of Companies, having its office at Videocon Towers, IInd Floor, Block E1, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi and also at A-Block, Phelts Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi.

(2.) The petitioner company had advanced some loan to the accused, Ved Pal and in pursuance to the said loan, the accused had issued a cheque bearing No. 142013 (Ex.CW1/B), dated 13.3.2008 for a sum of Rupees 14,946/- drawn on Allahabad Bank, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. It is alleged that the said cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured. It was received by the petitioner vide Cheque Return Memo dated 17.3.2008 (Ex.CW1/C) to the effect that funds in the account were not sufficient. The petitioner sent a Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) and since the payment was not made within the statutory period permissible in law, the petitioner, through its authorized representative, came to file a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. After examining the pre-summoning evidence, the learned Magistrate issued notices to the accused, Ved Pal, however, the said notice was received back unserved with the report that Ved Pal had expired. On the basis of the Report that the accused Ved Pal had died and his bailable warrants were received back as unexecutable, the learned Magistrate issued a contempt notice to the complainant, ICICI Bank Ltd. as well as to its Managing Director by observing that the factum of death of Ved Pal was in their knowledge and by filing a complaint under the NI Act on the basis of a cheque, purported to have been issued by a person who reportedly had died, much earlier than the date appearing on the face of the cheque, the petitioner had committed an offence of contempt of Court and they must show cause as to why they should not be proceeded under Contempt of Courts Act. It is against this impugned order that the petitioner and its Managing Director have come to the High Court in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 5.2.2011.

(3.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajiv Nayyar as well as Mr. Sunil Sharma, the learned APP. I have also gone through the record.