Ravi Gupta v. R.C.Tiwari

S. MURALIDHAR, J. MARCH 27, 2008 dn

Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CRL.M.C. 3019/2006 & CRL.M.A. No. 4950/2006(stay) Reserved on : 11th February, 2008 Date of decision : 27th March, 2008 RAVI GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Mittal, Advocate. versus R.C.TIWARI ..... Respondent Through Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate. CRL.M.C. 3022/2006 & CRL.MA No. 4953/2006(stay) RAVI GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Mittal, Advocate. versus M/S TULSHAN INTERNATIONAL ..... Respondent Through Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate. CRL.M.C. 3023/2006 & CRL.MA. No. 4954/2006(stay) RAVI GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Mittal, Advocate. versus SARLA TULSHAN ..... Respondent Through Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate. CRL.M.C. 3037/2006 & CRL.MA. No. 4973/2006(stay) RAVI GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Mittal, Advocate. versus M/S KANISHKA ENTERPRISES LTD. ..... Respondent Through Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate. AND CRL.M.C. 3056/2006 & CRL.MA. 4998/2006(stay) RAVI GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. R.K. Mittal, Advocate. versus J.M.BHASIN ..... Respondent Through Mr. H.S. Bhullar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? YES 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? YES Dr. S. MURALIDHAR, J. 1. The point for consideration in these petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (CrPC) is whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 ("NI Act") can be filed by a complainant through a power of attorney (POA). 2. The Petitioner is the accused in Complaint Case Nos. 460/1 of 2005 titled R.C. Tiwari v. Ravi Gupta, 461/1 of 2005 titled M/s. Tulshan International v. Ravi Gupta, 622/1 of 2005 titled Sarla Tulshan v. Ravi Gupta, 462/1 of 2005 titled M/s. Kanishka Enterprises Limited v. Ravi Gupta and 621/1 of 2005 titled J.M. Bhasin v. Ravi Gupta pending in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate ("MM"), Delhi. The petitioner has been summoned in these complaints for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. 3. The allegations in the complaints are more or less similar. It is stated that cheques for various sums of moneys drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant when presented to the bank for payment were returned dishonoured with the remarks "funds insufficient". With no payment having been made despite demand notices, the complaints were filed. 4. Crl. M.C. 3019 of 2006 seeks the quashing of Complaint Case No. 460/1 of 2005 titled Shri R.C. Tiwari v. Shri Ravi Gupta. The complaint is about the dishonor of cheque No. 085312 dated 6th December 2004 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and cheque No. 386087 dated 7th December 2004 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs in alleged discharge of the liability towards repayment of loans taken from the complainant by the accused. 5. Crl. M.C. 3022 of 2006 seeks the quashing of Complaint Case No. 461/1 of 2005 titled M/s. Tulshan International v. Ravi Gupta in respect of three cheques: cheque No. 386091 dated 8th December, 2004 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, cheque No. 386093 dated 9th December, 2004 for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and cheque No.085311 dated 9th December, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs. Each of these cheques when presented for payment was returned with the remarks "funds insufficient". This Complaint Case No. 461/1 of 2005 indicates that it is filed on behalf of the firm M/s. Tulshan International, a partnership firm, through its POA holder Shri R.C. Tewari. It is accompanied by evidence by way of an affidavit of Shri R.C. Tewari. The complaint has been signed by Saroj Hegde for the complainant and the first paragraph of the complaint says that the firm has authorised Shri R.C. Tiwari to prosecute the complaint. The POA executed in favour of Shri R.C. Tiwari has been placed on record. The learned MM by an order dated 14th February, 2005 summoned the accused under Section 138 NI Act. The recall of the summoning order was sought by the Petitioner but that