CITY PALACE ELECTRONICS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the summoning order dated 16.11.2004 passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and for quashing of the complaint and the proceedings emanating therefrom. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned counsel for respondent and have gone through the impugned order as also copies of the documents placed on the file.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s. City Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors S.Shri Vijay Kumar Chabra, Dinesh Kumar Chabra and Rajinder Kumar Chabra. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No.1 is a multi-brand dealer and was one of several hundred authorized dealers of the complainant. Complainant supplied its Sony and AIWA products to accused No.1 and four running accounts were maintained. The account of Sony branded products was settled till 19.6.2004 when a sum of Rs.8,16,935/- was credited to the account of the accused towards obsolete CRL.M.C.Nos.2405-07/2005 and 5970/2005 Page 2 of 13 stock and other schemes. To settle the accounts regarding AIWA, a sum of Rs.8,70,000/- was paid by the accused to the complainant on 7.6.2004 Further it is alleged that with a view to settle the outstandings in the Sony branded products accounts subsequent to 19.6.2004 till 14.10.2004, the accused issued the cheque bearing No.608977 dated 14.10.2004 in the sum of Rs.27,75,092/- drawn on Karnataka Bank, Laxmi Nagar Branch, Delhi towards discharge of legal liability in favour of the complainant. The accused No.2 to 4 from time to time duly assured the representatives of the complainant that the cheque would be honoured upon presentation. But the cheque on presentation was dis-honoured with remarks ?payment stopped?. It is alleged that the accused knew that the cheque would not be honoured and had fraudulently given it to the complainant. Statutory notice was sent but in vain.

(3.) In para 13 of the complaint, it is alleged that accused Nos. 2 to 4 being Directors, as such are in-charge and are responsible for the day-to-day business of accused No.1, hence they are liable to be prosecuted. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed with the complaint.