VEENA RANI Vs. RENU KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.A. No. 10811/2016 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 2522/2016 and Crl. M.A. No. 10810/2016 (Stay) By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint No. NI-1013/14 under Sec. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short 'NI Act ') titled as Smt. Renu Kapoor Vs. Smt. Veena and the proceedings pursuant thereto.

(2.) Renu Kapoor filed a complaint under Sec. 138 NI Act alleging that she had advanced a loan of L60,000.00 to the petitioner who was her first cousin for the operation of her mother in the form of loan which the petitioner undertook to return in the month of Feb., 2012 and a sum of L1.40 lakhs to her sister Smt. Madhubala. For repayment of loan of L60,000.00 the petitioner had issued post dated cheque bearing No. 493726 dated 1st Feb., 2012 for an amount of L60,000.00 drawn on Canara Bank. The said cheque was presented for encashment but the same was dishonored vide memo dated 9th Feb., 2012 with the remark 'refer to drawer '. A legal notice dated 24th Feb., 2012 was issued however, the same was received back unserved with the endorsement 'adhura pata he '. The respondent again presented the cheque which was dishonored on 15th March, 2012 with the remark 'contact drawer ' and thereafter a statutory demand notice dated 17th March, 2012 was issued through the counsel which was duly received by the petitioner however, the loan amount was not repaid and thus the complaint.

(3.) The respondent/complainant examined herself and exhibited the documents. On summons being issued the petitioner entered appearance and sought recalling of the summoning order/dropping of the complaint. The plea taken by the petitioner in the application was that no statutory notice was served at all and no notice was dispatched at the correct address. Further there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment, the husband of the respondent/complainant was a money lender and had obtained the amount written and signed blank cheque in question from the petitioner on 3rd May, 2008 under the influence and trust being brother-in-law, which he misused. The amount due to the respondent has already been paid to her husband in her presence at their residence. However, the cheque was not returned on the pretext that the same was misplaced. Thereafter the husband of the respondent in collusion with the respondent and her brother misused the cheque and filed the complaint which is an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner also filed an affidavit in defence reiterating the averments in the application for recalling of the summoning order.