MANINDER SINGH NARULA Vs. PAWAN KUMAR RALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) the Petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal complaint case No.819/2012 and the summoning order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Karkardooma Court, Delhi.

(2.) Before adverting to the grounds raised in the Petition, I would in brief narrate the facts leading to the filing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I.Act). According to the Respondent (the Complainant before the MM), three cheques for Rs. 30 lacs, 20 lacs and 10 lacs drawn on Allahabad Bank and ICICI Bank respectively were issued by the Petitioner in favour of the Respondent towards discharge of his liability for a loan of Rs. 60 lacs. After issuing the three cheques in favour of the Respondent, the Petitioner fraudulently instructed his Banker to "stop payment" in respect of the said cheques, since the Petitioner did not have sufficient funds in his account. When the earlier said cheques were presented, the same were dishonoured. The Respondent, therefore, issued a demand notice dated 24.05.2012 calling upon the Petitioner to make the payment of the cheque amount failing which the Respondent shall be compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (the N.I.Act) and under Section 420 IPC. The payment having not been made within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the notice, the Respondent filed a complaint in the Court of MM on 05.07.2012.

(3.) It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that although the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadanandan Bhadran v. Madhavan Sunil Kumar, 1998 6 SCC 514 has been overruled by a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.261-264 of 2002, decided on 26.09.2012 and it has been held that the holder of the cheque can defer prosecution when he expects the drawer to make arrangement for the funds, yet, the cheque has to be presented again in the Bank for a subsequent cause of action.