PUNEET VATSAYAN Vs. ALTRUIST TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Puneet Vatsayan-petitioner has filed this petition against Altruist Technologies Private Ltd. under Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. praying for quashing of the complaint titled as M/s Altruist Technologies Private Ltd. Vs. P uneet Vatsayan, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, filed by the respondent under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NI Act') against the petitioner and further for quashing of summoning order dated 15.4.2013 and all consequential proceedings.

(2.) In the petition, it is mainly stated that petitioner is Director No. 1 M/s Mobera Systems Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MSPL') is a private limited company and is also having all the shares of this Company along Anupama Arya. The paid capital of this Company is Rs. 9.8 Crores and petitioner and Anupama Arya are having its all shares and there is no other share-holder. They have also another company, namely, M/s Mobera Advanced Technologies Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'MATPL') and petitioner and Anupama Arya are its Directors. The paid capital of petitioner No. 1 is Rs. 1 Lac only and petitioner and Anupama Arya are having its all shares and there is no other share-holder. In the year 2008, MSPL was allotted a plot bearing No. 18, Sector 22, I.T. Park, Panchkula, measuring 3600 sq. meters by the HSIIDC and it is in actual physical possession of the same. The MSPL obtained sanction of building plans from HSIIDC for proposed construction and subsequently all permissions/NOCs from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Fire and Civil Aviation Departments have also been obtained. Besides this, electricity and water connections were also obtained. The respondent through its Director Anuj Aggarwal approached the petitioner and showed interest in the proposed construction on the above said site and became interested to take on lease first and second floors of the proposed building having total area measuring 25,000 sq. feet along with 75% car parking slot on the upper level basement of the building after the completion of construction and he desired that proposed construction should be undertaken under his supervision and for that he will charge consultation charges. An agreement to Lease dated 1.2.2012 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The respondent agreed to pay a refundable interest free security deposit amounting to Rs. 10 Crores as "Security Deposit" as described in the petition. Further, as per the above said agreement the term of the Lease Agreement shall be 50 years and the rent would be Rs. 2,50,000.00 per month. The security deposit was secured by way of pledge of 50,86,486 equity shares held by Puneet and 47,21,344 equity shares held by Anupama in MSPL, pledge of 6,000 equity shares held by MSPL, 2,000 equity shares held by Puneet and 2,000 equity shares held by Anupama in MATPL and post-dated cheques of Rs. 5 Crores by M/s Mobera Systems Private Limited in favour of the respondent bearing No. 386214, post-dated cheque of Rs. 5 Crores by M/s Mobera Advanced Technologies Private Ltd. in favour of the respondent bearing No. 257509, 9 post-dated cheques of Rs. 1 Crore each by Puneet, petitioner No. 2, in favour of Altruist totalling Rs. 9 Crores bearing Nos.742633, 742634, 742635, 742636, 742637, 742638, 742639, 742640, 742641 and post-dated cheque of Rs. 1 Crore by Anupama in favour of the respondent bearing No. 158792. It is also stated that the respondent had deposited all the above stated cheques for Rs. 20 Crores in the Bank and got these dishonoured and sent legal notices under Sec. 138 of the NI Act for the above said cheques. The petitioner replied to the legal notice sent by the respondent by sending detailed reply dated 26.2.2013. The respondent had misused the above 12 cheques of Rs. 20 Crores. The petitioner accordingly filed civil suit for mandatory injunction to hand over the shares pledged with it and also to hand over the cheques given by the petitioner. The respondent filed criminal complaint under Sec. 138 of the NI Act in the Court and the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class passed summoning order dated 15.4.2013. The petitioner also filed application under Sec. 258 Crimial P.C. The petitioner, Anupama Arya and their Companies have also received the summons in another 11 complaints and they also challenged the complaint and summoning orders in another complaints also.

(3.) It is also stated that 12 complaints including the complaint under challenge in the present petition has been filed by the respondent complainant, who has given only Rs. 5 Crores to the petitioner as per Agreement of Lease but the respondent had presented cheques for Rs. 20 Crores in the bank and filed 12 complaints. It is also stated in the petition that the event of default has been defined in Clause 3 of the above said agreement to Lease.