TANVI GARG Vs. RAJAT GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of complaint No.6642 dtd. 16/7/2015, titled as'Rajat Gupta vs. Tanvi Garg' under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short'NI Act'), order dtd. 16/7/2015, Annexure P-2, passed by learned trial Court and order dtd. 19/9/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.

(2.) Briefly put, the facts as emerge from the complaint are that the complainant-respondent was stated to have been seeking guidance and instructions from the father of the petitioner for his preparation for civil services examination and interview. During that period, on a request made by the petitioner, he advanced a friendly loan to her. The cheque dtd. 2/6/2015, was issued for the discharge of the said liability, but on presentation thereof, it was dishonoured with remarks'insufficient funds' vide memo dtd. 15/6/2015. This led to serving a legal notice dtd. 19/6/2015, sent through registered post of even date. Thereafter, complaint was filed on 13/7/2015, under Sec. 138 NI Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the summoning order has been passed without due application of mind. Submission next raised by him is that in the legal notice, Annexure P-7, the factum of amount having been loaned in two installments was mentioned to be as April/May, 2015, whereas in the complaint Annexure P-1, it was mentioned as April/ May, 2014. Thus, the legal notice, which is the basis of initiation of proceedings under Sec. 138 NI Act is in itself not valid. He further refers to the application seeking anticipatory bail, Annexure P-15 and the petition filed for quashing of FIR, Annexure P-16, lodged against the complainant-respondent, wherein it has been mentioned that the amount in question was advanced to the petitioner and her family, which is contrary to the averments made in the complaint, wherein it was stated that it was loaned to the petitioner. In wake of this, learned counsel would submit that there is no legally enforceable debt, arising in the case, once the complainant himself had specifically mentioned that it was an amount loaned to the petitioner as well as her family, as to why, the petitioner would issue a cheque to discharge the liability of her family, is not forthcoming. These documents are of the complainant-respondent himself, as such are of sterling quality, was his submission. The charges have been framed against the complainant-respondent in the FIR lodged under Sec. 380 IPC. The petition filed by the complainant-respondent seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR was withdrawn by him before this Court, thereby the presumption raised against the petitioner stands dispelled and rebutted.