RAM SETHI Vs. BCC PROPERITIES PVT LTD
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
BCC PROPERTIES PVT. LTD
Click here to view full judgement.
V.B.Gupta, J. -
(1.) By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of
the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
pending in the Court of Magistrate.
(2.) The respondent/complainant had executed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the present petitioner for purchase of certain land at
Mohali and at the time of execution of the Memorandum of Understanding,
the respondent/ complainant made advance payment of Rs. 50 lacs to the
petitioner. Since the deal could not materialse, the petitioner issued cheque
dated 15th November, 2005, amounting to Rs. 50 lacs for re-payment of the
advance payment to the respondent/complainant. Later on the cheque was
dishonoured and was returned back with the remarks "insufficient funds".
(3.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
respondent/complainant had entered into an agreement with one Gurinder
Singh Cheema for purchase of the land and this deal was brokered through
the petitioner and to this effect a Memorandum of Understanding was
executed between the petitioner and the respondent wherein it was stated
by the petitioner that he was issuing a cheque dated 15th November, 2005
as a guarantee only and this amount of Rs. 50 lacs was paid to one Gurinder
Singh Cheema and nothing went to the pocket of the petitioner. Since the
deal could not be materialised, the said Gurinder Singh Cheema returned
Rs. 50 lacs to the respondent vide pay orders and the whole liability was of
Gurinder Singh Cheema to the respondent and the petitioner has only stood
as a guarantor. Since the petitioner has not received a single penny out of
this Rs. 50 lacs, there is no liability of the petitioner to pay the amount to
the respondent and as such the present criminal complaint is liable to be
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.