LAWS(DLH)-1999-1-63

KRISHNA MURARI PODDAR Vs. STATE

Decided On January 28, 1999
KRISHNA MURARI PODDAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the 'Code') seeking quashing of the summoning of the petitioners and the proceedings arising in complaint case No. 536/96 for an offence under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the 'Act') by the 32nd Metropolitan Magistrate (M.M.), New Delhi.

(2.) M/s. DCM Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi (hereinafter called the 'complainant'), has filed a complaint against M/s. Garpco Industries Ltd. and its Chairman, Managing Director and four Directors (arraigned as accused Nos. 1 to 7), the petitioners being accused Nos. 4 and 5 (A-4 and A-5) shown as its two Directors, for proceeding under Section 138 of the Act read with Sections 141 and 142.

(3.) The facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is engaged in the business of financing, leasing, hire purchase etc., and it had given certain plant and machinery to accused No. 1 on lease and hire purchase basis for which written lease agreement and hire purchase agreement (copy of which have not been produced) were executed and towards the repayment of the monthly charges and hire rentals for the month of May, 1996 two cheques being No. 778105 and 781013 both dated 1.5.1996 of Rs. 2,77,914.25 and Rs. 2,81,006.37 respectively drawn on ANZ Grindlays Bank, Janpath, New Delhi were given to the complainant on behalf of the accused. The two cheques were presented by the complainant through its bankers Punjab & Sind Bank, Janpath, New Delhi but were returned dishonoured by the drawee bank on 4.5.1996 with the remarks "not arranged for". The complainant had sent two separate statutory notices both dated 10.5.96 by regd. A.D. post and UPC to accused No. 1 demanding the payment against the aforesaid two cheques. These were duly served and were dishonoured by the accused in its reply dated 5.6.1996. Inspite of this notice, the payment having not been made the complaint was filed for proceeding against all the accused Nos. 1 to 7.