NITIN MAHAJAN Vs. VINOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present petition filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of proceedings arising out of Complaint bearing NACT No.540, dtd. 21/12/2018, under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), filed by the Respondent along with summoning order dtd. 21/2/2019 passed by Ld. JMIC-cum-CJ(JD), Hansi against the petitioner with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Point of contention in the present case is very short and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings are vitiated from the very beginning on account of the fact that a bare perusal of the original Complaint (Annexure P-4) reveals that the Complainant has himself admitted the cheque in question was issued on 18/5/2018, which was ultimately dishonoured by Banker of the accused on 8/11/2018. He further submits that though the complainant has very conveniently avoided mentioning the date on which such cheque was presented for encashment, but it was apparent that the cheque had already become invalid upon expiry of three months of its issuance i.e. on 17/8/2018, especially, in view of the RBI Notification No.RBI/2011-12/251 DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14/1/1 /2011-12 dtd. 4/11/2011. In support of his submission he places reliance upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of "Ansh Chugh vs. Pradeep Gupta", CRL.M.C.2973/2018 and Crl.M.A.No.10513/2018, in which proceedings were quashed specifically in view of the background that non-presentation of the cheque to the drawee bank, within the period specified, absolves the person issuing the same of his criminal liability under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complainant had taken a sum of Rs.9,07,000.00 from the respondent in the name of sending him to Europe and to provide him employment there subject to condition that in case, he could not fulfill his promise then he shall return the amount. Subsequently when he could not send the respondent to Europe, in the name of refund of amount and to discharge the above said existing and legally enforceable outstanding liability, he issued this stale dated cheque in favour of the respondent. He however does not deny the fact that the cheque was dishonored approximately two and half months after the date of its issuance.