RITESH GARODIA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these Criminal Misc. Applications are raising out of common issues and parties in all these Criminal Misc. Applications are same and the issues involved in all these applications are almost similar, these Criminal Misc. Applications are being dealt with and disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, Criminal Misc. Application No. 5915 of 2013 is treated as a lead matter.

(2.) The applicant ­ original accused has presented the application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 5915 of 2013 by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the issuance of summons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act [the "Act" for short] in Criminal Complaint No. 6545 of 2012 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.

(3.) Now coming back to the lead matter i.e. Criminal Misc. Application No. 5915 of 2013, it is the case of the applicant that the complainant namely respondent no. 2 is a Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act and is essentially engaged in the business of manufacturing Steel and accused no. 1 ­ Company is a Private Limited Company, which placed various orders and in response thereto, the complainant Company frequently sent goods and materials as ordered by the accused ­ Company. It was averred in the complaint that the orders were placed by accused ­ company through original accused nos. 2 and 3 from Hajira plant, Surat. It was stated that the total outstanding amount payable comes to Rs.31,79,469.79 and it is against this payment, the accused ­ Company has issued cheque bearing No. 580196 for an amount of Rs.31,79,469.79. It is the case of the complainant that the said cheque when presented in the Bank, the same came to be returned and dishonoured and as a result of which, the complainant ­ Company was required to issue legal notice on 04.02.2011. It has been observed in the complaint that after the said notice, one Memorandum of Understanding (MOU for short) came to be arrived at deduced in writing and signed by original accused ­ Company through its Director, accused no. 2 and it was agreed in the said MOU to clear the amount by twelve monthly installments for which accused no. 1 had issued twelve cheques each of Rs.2,64,956/ in favour of the complainant ­ Company.