Jignesh Kumar v. M/S Ester Industries Ltd. & Ors

RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J NOVEMBER 15, 2021 a

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 15.11.2021 + CRL. M.C. 2857/2021 JIGNESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Yashvardhan, Ms. Smita Kant and ms. Kritika Nagpa, Advocates. versus M/s. ESTER INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR RAJNISH BHATNAGAR J. (ORAL) CRL. M.A. No. 17982/2021 (for exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of. CRL. M.C. 2857/2021 &CRL M.A. 17981/2021 (for stay) 1. The present petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: a) Call for the records of Complaint Case No. 17074/2018 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the Respondent no. 1 pending before the Ld. Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi; b) Quash the Summoning Order dated 12.12.2018 issued by the Ld. Court of Ms. Vijeta Singh Rawat, Patiala House Court, New Delhi under sections 138 and 142, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 qua the Petitioner; c) Quash the Complaint Case No. 17074/2018 filed under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pending before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Court, New Delhi qua the Petitioner Herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Accused No. 1 M/s.lndu Polymers, is a Partnership Firm and is represented by its partners Accused No. 2 V.V. Satyanarayana and accused No. 3 Jignesh Kumar (Petitioner herein). The Accused No. 2 and 3 approached the Complainant/Respondent no.2 for purchase of Polyester PBT Chips, and Polycarbonates and requested the complainant to supply the said materials to the Accused. The accused in order to partly liquidate the outstanding amount and towards the legally enforceable debt, which has been due and payable to the complainant, issued the following four cheques in tune of Rs 12,00,000/-: a. Cheque bearing No.001004 dt.30-9-2014 for Rs.3,00,000/-and drawn on City Union Bank, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. b. Cheque bearing No.001003 dt.30-10-2014 for Rs.3,00,000/-and drawn on City Union Bank, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. c. Cheque bearing No.001005 dt.30-10-2014 for Rs.3,00,000/-and drawn on City Union Bank, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. d. Cheque bearing No.001006 dt.30-9-2014 for Rs.3,00,000/-and drawn on City Union Bank, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. 3. The said four cheques on presentation were dishonored with remarks "Contact Drawer/ Refer to Drawer"on 30.10.2014 and 01.11.2014 respectively. 4. On 24.11.2014, Respondent No 2 served a legal notice dt. 24.11.2014 upon the accused persons, which was duly served upon them and even replied through their counsel vide reply dated 18.12.2014, but since no payment was made under the cheque, the complaint was filed on 31.12.2014 by respondent no. 2/Complainant. 5. The Petitioner has assailed the Summoning Order dated 12.12.2018 vide which he was summoned by the Ld.MM for offences U/s 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act. 6. It is vehemently urged by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that there are no allegations against the petitioner and though he was a partner in the respondent no. 2 firm, but was neither into day-to-day affairs of the partnership firm nor has any knowledge about the alleged transaction of the business of partnership firm. It is further submitted that the present petitioner is not a signatory to the cheques in question and the said cheques were issued by other Managing Partners. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments:  Katta Sujatha v. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Anr. [(2002) 7 SCC 655]  K. Srikanth Singh v. North East Securities Ltd. And Anr [(2007) 12 SCC 788]  Smt. Meenu Goyal v. M/S Micromax Informatics Ltd. &Ors. [2021 (276) DLT 80]  MonabenKetanbhai Shah and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [AIR 2004 SC 4274]  Sham Sunder v. State of Haryana [(1989) 4 SCC 630]  Pooja Ravinder