PAWAN KUMAR RALLI Vs. MANINDER SINGH NARULA
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-20
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on August 11,2014

Pawan Kumar Ralli Appellant
VERSUS
Maninder Singh Narula Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUBODH S SALASKAR VS. JAYPRAKASH M SHAH [REFERRED TO]
MRS LEATHERS VS. S. PALANIAPPAN [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

QUALITY ENGINEERING(BARODA) PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH M I KHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-85] [REFERRED TO]
NANDKISHOR SHAMKANT SONAR VS. MALATI DIVAKAR KULKARNI [LAWS(BOM)-2019-10-186] [REFERRED TO]
PRATAPSINH KALYANSINH PARMAR VS. YUSUFBHAI KUTUBUDIN BHARMAL [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-597] [REFERRED TO]
T. C. CHANDRAIAH VS. D. R. LINGAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2021-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH AGARWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-2-418] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTIRAO HOSMANI VS. SURESH [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-14] [REFERRED TO]
NEW BHARAT PHARMACEUTICALS VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2020-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
RUPESH VS. AKLIM [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-254] [REFERRED TO]
DR ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SOUMEN SARKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2022-5-137] [REFERRED TO]
C. ANANDA REDDY VS. S. JAYARAM [LAWS(KAR)-2016-11-86] [REFERRED TO]
JAGNNATH PRASAD VS. ASHISH KUMAR SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2019-11-136] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH SHARMA VS. SATBIR SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2015-8-581] [REFERRED]
ARVIND KUMAR THAKUR VS. POOJA GUPTA [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
ABHISHEK KUMAR VS. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-5-224] [REFERRED TO]
BRUSHMAN INDIA LTD & ANR VS. STATE & ANR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-11-147] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N.V.RAMANA, J. - (1.)LEAVE granted.
(2.)THIS appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 15th January, 2013 of the High Court of Delhi passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2961 of 2012 filed by the respondent herein under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. By the said judgment, the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act ') against the respondent.
The brief history of the case, according to the appellant, is that he had given a loan of Rs.60 lakhs to the respondent in the month of November, 2011. In discharge of his obligation to the appellant, on 25th April, 2012, the respondent issued (i) Cheque No. 889953, drawn on Allahabad Bank, for Rs.30 lakhs; (ii) Cheque No. 545420, drawn on ICICI Bank, for Rs.20 lakhs; and (iii) Cheque No. 545409, drawn on ICICI Bank, for Rs. 10 lakhs. When the appellant presented the said cheques in his Bank for realization, they were dishonoured by the respondent 's banker with remarks 'Stop Payment '.

(3.)THE appellant, after receiving the communication from his banker about the dishonour of Cheques, issued a handwritten notice (Annexure P4) to the respondent on 27th April, 2012 calling upon him to make the payment. Upon non -compliance by the respondent, a formal legal notice dated 24th May, 2012 (Annexpure P5) was issued under Section 138/142 of the Act requiring the respondent to pay the cheques amount along with interest and costs. In his reply to the legal notice, the respondent totally disagreed with the allegation of taking loan from the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Complaint Case against the respondent invoking Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Act and Section 420, of the Indian Penal Code. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance and summoned the respondent who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.