VIJAY CABLE INDUSTRIES Vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by filing the present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter after referred to as "Cr.P.C.") have challenged the order dated 27.07.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, SE, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is dealing in sale and supply of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) and other allied products, the respondent No.1 supplied PVC to the petitioner company. On 15.02.1998 a sum of Rs.3,96,58,390.27 paise (Rupees Three crore ninety six lakhs fifty eight thousand three hundred ninety and twenty seven paise) excluding interest and sales tax liability was due and outstanding towards the legal debt and the same was admitted by the petitioners. In liquidation of the said amount the petitioners issued four cheques bearing Nos.356172 dated 17.02.1998 for Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs), 356174 dated 19.02.1998 for Rs.1,37,00,000/- (Rupees One crore thirty seven lakhs), 356180 dated 15.02.1998 for Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs) and 356175 dated 18.02.1998 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One crore) all drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place, New Delhi. On presentation, the said cheques were dishonoured with the remarks "account transferred to protested bill account". Despite service of legal notice dated 10.03.1998 the petitioner failed to make the payment of these cheques. As a result, respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding dishonour of cheques.

(3.) Vide order dated 22.06.2001, the accused persons were summoned by the trial court. Mr. Tilak Raj Bhatia, respondent No.3 expired on 06.05.2003. Vide order dated 31.03.2012, learned trial court observed that respondent No.1 herein/ complainant does not want to proceed against accused No.4 and Ms. Priya Bhatia and notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was subsequently framed against the petitioners.