MINNI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking setting aside of complaint dtd. 14/1/2020 registered as NACT No. 13 of 2020 titled as Shri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. vs Minni Kumari filed by respondent no.2, whereby proceedings under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been initiated against the petitioner as well as the summoning order dtd. 1/2/2020 through which the petitioner has been summoned to appear in the said case.

(2.) The gravamen of the Petitioner's case is that the impugned proceedings arise out of a misuse of security cheques obtained at the time of extending a loan facility. As per the version set out in the complaint, Respondent No. 2 company is engaged in the business of financing and leasing. The Petitioner allegedly approached Respondent No. 2 for availing a vehicle loan in respect of a vehicle bearing Model ZT-35. In pursuance thereof, a loan agreement dtd. 1/10/2013 was executed between the parties and a sum of Rs.42,39,000.00 was disbursed to the Petitioner. It is further stated in the complaint that, towards discharge of her liability, the Petitioner issued cheque bearing No. 502209 dtd. 27/11/2019 for an amount of Rs.25,38,877.00 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Vasundhara Branch, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, in favour of Respondent No. 2. Upon presentation, the said cheque was returned unpaid with the endorsement "insufficient funds" vide return memo dtd. 5/12/2019. Consequent thereto, after sending the legal notice, the instant complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed and the summoning order dtd. 1/2/2020 was issued.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's husband carries on business under the name and style of M/s Square Construction Private Limited, a partnership firm comprising of her husband - Manjot Kumar Singh and one Manoj Yaduvanshi as partners. The said partnership firm purchased a Drilling Rig (ZT-35A) from Rosewood Projects Private Limited vide invoice dtd. 6/3/2010 for consideration of Rs.57,14,286.00. For the purchase of the said machine, a loan was obtained from Respondent No. 2 in the year 2010, as the equipment was required for the firm's business operations. He submits that at the time of availing the said loan, Respondent No. 2 obtained several cheques as security from the partnership firm and further also required the husband of the Petitioner to furnish blank cheques from his personal account, which was a joint account held with the Petitioner. It is submitted that the signatures of the Petitioner were also obtained on certain blank documents forming part of the loan transaction and that she was either made a guarantor or her signatures and cheques were taken merely as security and she was never a borrower in her individual capacity. Counsel contends that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm and that the loan in question was availed exclusively for the business of the firm and that Respondent No. 2 neither furnished a copy of the loan agreement to the partners nor annexed the same with the complaint.