ROSHAN LAL Vs. NEELAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 14.6.2010, vide which he was summoned in the said complaint and 15.10.2010, vide which the application filed for dropping the proceedings against him in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') was dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had issued a cheque dated 20.1.2010 for a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the respondent on account of the amount settled as permanent alimony during the pendency of a matrimonial dispute. As per the settlement arrived at between the parties, the respondent was to withdraw the application filed by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C., however, she having not withdrawn the same, the payment of cheque was stopped. Divorce was granted by this court by mutual consent vide order dated 1.4.2010 passed in FAO No. 152- M of 2007. Against that order, the respondent filed Review Application No. 104-CII of 2010 raising a grievance regarding non-receipt of Rs. 15,00,000/-. During the pendency thereof, the petitioner paid the amount by way of demand draft for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the respondent, three FDRs for a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of son-Abhishek and three FDRs for a total sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of Anikita. Total amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- having been paid, the review application was disposed of. The present complaint was filed by the respondent with ulterior motive on 14.6.2010. As the amount equivalent to that of the cheque had already been paid, the claim made in the complaint does not survive.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner had cheated the respondent and her family members. By playing fraud, he made them to sign the compromise, the terms of which were not adhered to by him. He does not deserve to be granted any benefit. The trial in the complaint should continue. However, the fact regarding receipt of Rs. 15,00,000/- has not been disputed. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.