RAJEEV BHALLA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C , the petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint bearing CC No. 400/K/ 2012 filed by the respondent no. 2 under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 titled as Smt. Neeraj Chopra V. Sh. Rajeev Bhalla and also the summoning order dated 01.05.2012, issued by the court of Sh. Chander Mohan, Metropolitan Magistrate (Central), Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi.

(2.) Addressing arguments on the present petition, counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent who is a complainant before the learned Magistrate is the sister of the petitioner and the petitioner in good faith had handed over three blank signed cheques to the respondent herein for the purpose of payment of some insurance premium. Counsel further submits that by a registered will dated 21.2.2005, the mother of the petitioner had bequeathed all her moveable and immovable assets in favour of the petitioner and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.30 lacs in favour of the respondent towards her alleged share in the property. Counsel also submits that petitioner had throughout been in possession of the residential house bearing flat no. L-138- B, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhibut with a view to black mail the petitioner and extract money from him, the respondent has filed a complaint Case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 after misusing the unused signed cheques of the petitioner. Counsel also submits that the complaint case filed by the respondent is manifestly attended with malafide designs and therefore, such an oblique and malice complaint is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 AIR(SC) 604 and the same merits dismissal. Counsel also submits that complaint filed by the respondent is otherwise not maintainable in the eyes of law as the same does not fulfil the other essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court inPepsi Foods Ltd. and anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors., 1998 AIR(SC) 128 to support his arguments that the summoning of an accused in a criminal complaint is a serious matter and therefore, the machinery of criminal law should not be set in motion in cases of frolicsome nature.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order passed by the learned Magistrate.