SATYA KESARI Vs. DAINIK BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been preferred under Sec. 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking quashing of complaint bearing NACT No.2650 of 2023 dtd. 1/9/2023 titled as 'Dainik Bhaskar Vs. M/s Satya Kesari and another' filed under Ss. 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act') (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dtd. 31/10/2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Panipat and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) Briefly, the facts, as alleged by the respondent-complainant, are that it is publishing and circulating daily newspaper under the name and style of Dainik Bhaskar from Panipat (Haryana) and Mohinder Sharma is Recovery Manager of the same and as per resolution dtd. 12/5/2014, he is duly authorized to file, sign and contest the complaint (supra). It is alleged that the petitioners executed an agreement/contract dtd. 1/3/2021 with the respondent regarding production/publication of his daily newspaper namely Satya Kesari and as per the aforesaid agreement/contract, the respondent printed newspaper from 1/4/2020 till 10/5/2021. The respondent asked for the payment from the month of April, 2021 for clearing the due amount of Rs.1.50 lacs and on the request of the petitioners for concession/discount, it was settled that the petitioners will pay Rs.1.10 lacs. Thereafter, in order to discharge his liabilities, the petitioners issued a part-payment cheque bearing No.187413 dtd. 10/7/2023 for Rs.11,000.00 of Punjab National Bank, Sadar Bazar, Karnal. When the said cheque was presented by the respondent for clearance with its banker IDBI Bank, GT Road, Panipat, the same was dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by the drawer" vide memo dtd. 11/7/2023. When the respondent informed the petitioners about the same and demanded the cheque amount, they turned down its request. Thereafter, a legal notice dtd. 8/8/2023 was served by the respondent upon the petitioners through its counsel, demanding the cheque amount, to which the petitioners sent a false and fabricated reply and alleged that the legal notice was just to grab the money. When the petitioners failed to pay the cheque amount to the respondent, the complaint (supra) was instituted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that vide agreement dtd. 27/10/2022 (Annexure P-3), the respondent agreed for publishing, marketing and distribution of flyers, broachers and advertising promotional material of the petitioners through its distribution network and it was mentioned in the said agreement that it will automatically terminated on 31/3/2024. However, no work has been allotted to the petitioners and the cheques, which were given in security, were presented by the respondent. It is further contended that earlier an agreement dtd. 1/3/2021 (Annexure P-4) was executed between the petitioners and the respondent, which was from 1/3/2021 to 28/2/2022. However, on 27/4/2021, Karambir Singh, an authorized person of the respondent-firm stated that management of the respondent-company stopped printing job on the basis of credit, as per terms and conditions of the agreement dtd. 1/3/2021 (Annexure P-4) and further printing job for the petitioners would be done on advance payment basis and stopped printing job before the expiry of the said agreement. As such, the respondent, by concealing the agreement dtd. 27/10/2022 (Annexure P-3), has manipulated the earlier agreement dtd. 1/3/2021 (Annexure P-4).