SUMIT JUNEJA Vs. STATE OF H. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing the complaint titled M/S PDC Healthcare versus M/S Saintlife Medicine Pvt. Ltd. and another bearing complaint No. NIA/49/2018, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, HP and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom and summoning order dtd. 3/2/2018.

(2.) Briefly stated, the respondent No.2 (complainant before the learned Trial Court) filed a complaint against the petitioner (accused No. 2 before the learned Trial Court) for the commission of an offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience). It was asserted that the complainant firm manufactures pharma products. Anil Kumar is the Managing Partner and he is looking after the affairs of the firm. Accused No.1 is a Private Limited Company and accused No.2, is the Managing Director /authorized signatory of the Company. He is looking after the affairs and managing the daily affairs of the Company. The accused were regular customers of the complainant and they used to purchase medicines from the complainant on credit. A sum of ?1,06,03,924/- (One Crore Six Lakhs Three Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty-Four) was due against the accused on 9/9/2017. purchased the medicines worth ?8,72,589/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Five Hundred Eight Nine) through bill bearing No. 00195. The accused No.2 issued a post-dated cheque for a sum of ?8,72,589/- for discharging his liability. The accused No.2 also issued for another cheque sum of ?5,90,000/- to discharge the legal liability. The accused stopped business with the complainant. An amount of ? 1,13,46, 371/- (Rupees One Crore, Thirteen Lakhs, Forty Six Thousand and Three Hundred Seventy One) was due against the accused upto October, 2017. The complainant deposited the cheques before his bank from where they were sent to the bank of accused No.1; however, the bank of accused No.1 dishonoured the cheque with an endorsement "Payment Stopped by the Drawer". The complainant told the accused No.2 about the dishonour of the cheque who told the complainant to present the cheques again and assured that they would be honoured on their presentation. The complainant again submitted the cheques to his bank from where they were sent to the bank of the accused. The cheques were again dishonoured with the endorsement "Payment Stopped by the Drawer". The complainant served a legal notice upon the accused asking them to make the payment. The notice was duly served upon the accused but they failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint was filed against the accused for taking action as per the law.

(3.) The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused vide order dtd. 3/2/2018. The accused being aggrieved from the summoning order has approached this Court for quashing the order and the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court. It was asserted that the goods supplied by the complainant were of inferior quality. A large quantity of medicines failed the test and these were returned to the complainant. GST of ? 13,35,254.81 was reversed and a debit note was issued to the complainant which was acknowledged by him. The accused expressed serious concern to the complainant about the poor quality of life-saving medicines. A meeting was called and all invoices with the complainant were settled by accused No.2. An amount of ? 13,35,254.81/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs, Thirty-Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-Four and eighty-one paise) was found due after settlement of the amount. It was agreed that the complainant would issue a No Objection Certificate on the payment of the amount. The accused paid a sum of ? 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs), which was duly acknowledged by the complainant. The accused resigned from the post of Managing Director on 25/10/2021 and Sunil Nandwani was appointed as Managing Director of the Company. Again a meeting was held and it was agreed that the accused No.2 would act as a guarantor for the complainant towards SS Printpack, one of the creditors, for an amount of ?33,00,000/-. It was further agreed that an amount of ?12,00,000/- out of ? 13,35,254.81 GST Reverse Charges be set off against the outstanding amount. Accused No. 2 paid an amount of ?33,00,000/- to the creditor of the complainant vide transaction dtd. 1/9/2020 and SS Printpack confirmed the payment of the amount after adjusting ?12,00,000/- Nothing is due towards accused No.2. A certificate was also issued by Chartered Accountant Sumit Sabharwal and Associates dtd. 7/1/2023 to this effect. The complaint was wrongly filed. No preliminary evidence was led to establish the existence of legally enforceable debt. The summoning order was passed on 3/2/2018 without conducting any inquiry under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. The complainant failed to withdraw the legal proceedings despite the agreement. No inquiry was conducted by examining the witnesses. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and summoning order and the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court be set aside.