MOBILE STORE SERVICES LTD Vs. BEETEL TELETECH LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for quashing of the impugned order dtd. 3/12/2016 (Annexure P-4), vide which the trial Court has summoned the petitioners under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') in criminal complaint No.20314/SS/2016 dtd. 2/7/2016 titled as M/s Beetel Teletech Ltd. Vs. M/s The Mobile Store Services Ltd. and others and the order dtd. 22/5/2017 (Annexure P-5) passed by the revisional Court, vide which the revision petition filed by the petitioners, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the aforesaid complaint was presented on 27/6/2016 before the Court of Shri Sukhdev Singh, ld. JMIC, Gurugram, who was performing functions of Duty Magistrate during summer vacations. Ld. Duty Magistrate ordered that complaint be presented before ld. CJM, Gurugram, on 2/7/2016 for passing appropriate orders and directed complainant to appear before the court of ld. CJM, Gurugram.

(3.) The complainant on 3/12/2016 in his preliminary evidence examined Nitin Lavania, Assistant Manager as CW1 and produced documents Ex.CW1/1 to Ex.CW1/49, which included invoices, dishonoured cheques, memos of the banks, copies of statutory notices etc. Ld. Magistrate vide impugned order dtd. 3/12/2016 summoned accused-revisionists under Sec. 138 of N.I. Act on these accusations levelled in the compliant that complainant-company had sold goods to the accused company by way of various invoices. Accused in discharge of payments thereof drawn 19 cheques totaling for Rs.9,50,00,000.00 (nine crores fifty lakhs only) on their banker in favour of complainant-company but said cheques, on being presented for realization, returned back dishonoured with the report that payment stopped by drawer. As such complainant sent legal notice dtd. 7/5/2016 calling upon accused to pay the amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. As per recitals in the complaint, said statutory notice was received by the accused on 10/5/2016. Since payments were not made, so complaint was presented in the court on 27/6/2016.