ANIL KINGRANI Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner vide this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeks quashing of a complaint case No. 04/4R/2016 under Section 139/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and as per order dated 29.5.2015, the proceedings are stated to be pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03, Rohini.

(2.) A perusal of the record indicates that vide order dated 29.5.2015, the petitioner herein was summoned for an offence punishable under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) on a complaint filed by the respondent herein under Section 138 read with 142 of the Seciton138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (as amended) read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) The petitioner submits that qua the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended), it is well settled that it is only the signatory of the allegedly dishonoured cheque who can be made liable in relation thereto. The averments made in the complaint bearing No. 17733/15 filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (South-East) and now bearing no.04/4R/2016 pending in the Rohini Courts as filed by the complainant/the respondent herein, alleges that the petitioner Anil Kingrani and his wife Taruna Kingrani, approached the plaintiff for the sale of Plot bearing No.l402, measuring 32.00 sq. meters in Block & Pocket-C-1, Sector-34, situated in the lay out Plan of Rohini Residential Scheme, Rohini, Delhi- 110085 vide Application No.24187 and application No.23629 for a consideration of Rs.11,00,000/- and the petitioner herein and his wife being owners of the said plot entered into an agreement to sell dated 12.12.2013 with the complainant and against that agreement, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash and two cheques amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/- each drawn on Andhra Bank, Pitampura Branch, Delhi and that the petitioner and his wife executed another agreement to sell dated 30.12.2013 against which the complainant had paid the balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/- in respect of the said plot.