Amit Dua v. Jamil Ahmad

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J July 07, 2008 mg

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl.M.C. Nos. 2570/2007, 2573/2007 & 2709/2007 * Judgment Delivered on: July 07, 2008 Amit Dua ….Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep Gupta, Adv. Versus Shri Jamil Ahmad …Respondent Through: Respondent in person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may beallowed to see the judgment? yes 2. Whether the judgment be referred to the reporter or not? yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? yes Kailash Gambhir, J (Oral) This order shall dispose of all the three petitions bearing nos. Crl. M.C. No. 2570/2007 2573/2007 and Crl. M.C. No. 2709/2007 filed by the same petitioner. By way of the present petitions moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings and setting aside of order dated 1.8.2007 passed by the Court of Shri Vipin Kumar Rai, learned M.M., Karkardooma, Delhi in C.C. Nos. 2237/1, 2238/1 and 2239/1 taking cognizance of offence punishable under Section 138, N.I. Act, PS Kalyanpuri, Delhi. The brief facts common in these petitions are that the respondent Jamil Ahmed filed three separate complaint cases against the present petitioner and two other persons namely, Shri Rajinder Singh and Shri S.K. Nanda. It is alleged in the complaint filed by him that all the accused persons including the present petitioner used to purchase fresh fish on credit basis with an assurance that they will pay the credit amount within a period of 15 days against the credit balance of Rs.26,21,710/-. One of the accused Shri Rajinder Singh issued and signed the cheques and on the deposit of the said cheques they were returned by the banker of the said accused with remarks 'insufficient fund'. A legal notice was sent by the complainant /respondent and on the failure of the said accused to come forward to pay the amount within a stipulated period of 15 days, complaint Case nos.2237/01, 2238/01 and 2239/1 were filed by the complainant Jamil Ahmed on the allegation of non- payment and dishonored of cheques. In complaint case No. 2239/1 the dishonor of cheques bearing nos. 251108, 241230, 241233 dated 10.8.02, 27.9.02 and 7.10.02, for Rs.70,000/-, Rs.20,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively are involved while in complaint case no. 2238/1 the dishonor of cheques bearing nos. 234450, 234449 dated 25.9.2002 and 28.9.2002 for Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- respectively and in complaint case no. 2237/1 the dishonor of cheque bearing no. 334447 dated 20.9.2002 for Rs.50,000/- form basis of these complaint cases. Mr. Jamil Ahmed is present in the Court. He states that the present petitioner has been wrongly impleaded by him in the said complaint cases and he wants to continue with the complaint cases filed by him only against Mr. Rajinder Singh, who issued and signed the said cheques. Counsel for the petitioner urged that in the complaint cases filed by the respondent, no role has been assigned to the petitioner and no foundation was laid so as to show involvement of the petitioner by the respondent in all the three complaint cases filed by the respondent. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that no legal notice as mandatory under the provisions of Section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act was sent by the complainant/respondent to the petitioner and therefore, no demand whatsoever was raised by the complainant respondent as against the present petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that very vaguely in the complaint the complainant respondent alleged that all the accused persons used to purchase fresh fish on credit basis and the amount in question with respect to the said dishonoured cheques was outstanding against them. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the allegations made by the complainant are so unspecific, indefinite and vague to be taken cognizance of for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. In support of his arguments, counsel for the p