ANUJ TANDON Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petitioner, the petitioner seeks directions thereby to quash the Complaint bearing CC No. 1193/15 for the offences punishable under Ss. 138/141 read with Sec. 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

(2.) Brief fact of the case are that the petitioner alongwith respondent nos. 3 to 5 are running a company in the name of M/s Alpha Proptech (P) Ltd. Builders & Consultants. The respondent No. 2 desired to purchase one flat at Indrapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh and the respondent No.2 contacted the respondent No. 3 regarding the purchase of the flat and thereafter the respondent No.

(3.) had insisted the respondent No. 2 to purchase a duplex flat in Niti Khand. Thereafter, on 15/11/2012 the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 through their representative had entered into a written agreement with the wife of the respondent No. 2 for purchasing the property bearing Flat No. 1902, 19th Floor at Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, U.P for the sale consideration of the amount of ? 42,50,000/- and out of which a sum of ? 20,00,000/- was paid to the respondent Nos.3 to 5 on the same day and remaining amount of ?22,50,000/- was to be paid at the time of sale deed. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 started adopting evasive styles for executing the sale deed in favour of wife of the respondent No. 2. On 1/5/2013, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 again entered into an agreement to sell for the sale of the aforesaid flat with the wife of the respondent No. 2 and had further received a sum of ? 13 lacs also from the wife of respondent No. 2. On 28/4/2014, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 again entered into an agreement to sell with the wife of respondent No. 2 of the aforesaid flat. Respondent No. 2 as well as his wife approached the respondents Nos 3-5 many times but they failed to execute the sale deed of the aforesaid flat and thereafter respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had issued the cheques for a sum of ? 20 Lacs vide cheque bearing No. 025526 dtd. 6/5/2015 in favour of respondent No. 2 in discharge of their liability and also assured to respondent No. 2 to pay the remaining amount of ? 7 Lacs in cash within a short time. Further, two cheques for ? 3.5 lacs each, bearing No. 000007 and 000008 dtd. 6/5/2015 and 1/6/2015 respectively, both drawn on Bank of Baroda, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad from A/c. No. 30750200000398. 3. On the promise and assurance of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, respondent No. 2 presented the aforesaid cheques for encashment in his account in his bank i.e. Standard Chartered Bank, South Extension, Delhi and from where they were sent to banker of the respondent No. 2 for its clearance, but the same were dishonoured and returned unpaid vide cheque returning memos dtd. 30/6/2015 and 2/7/2015. After dishonouring of the cheques, the complainant intimated respondent Nos. 3 to 5 to return the aforesaid amount, but they refused to pay the same. On receipt of said information respondent No. 2 issued a legal demand notice dtd. 27/7/2015 to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 at their addresses. On 1/9/2015, a complaint was filed by respondent No. 2 before the concerned court, and the said court, without application of mind, issued summons on 1/10/2015. A perusal of the document from the Registrar of Companies shows that from 22/4/2015 onwards, the petitioner is neither a Director nor any cheque dtd. 6/5/2015 bears his signature. Further, the agreement to sell is also silent regarding participation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the complaint against the petitioner is wholly illegal in as much as it is gross violation of the provision of Sec. 138(1) (b) of the Negotiable Instrument Act as there is no legal notice sent to the Petitioner which explains his non involvement in the matter of dishonouring of the cheques in connection with the agreement to sell. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that no case under Sec. 138/141/142 is made out against the petitioner as neither he is a party to the Agreement nor any legal notice has been sent to him nor any cheques were issued by him.