M.L.MEHTA - (1.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the summoning order dated 05.06.2009 passed by ld. M.M. and the consequential proceedings arising thereof in the Complaint Case no. 1478/3/09 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (herein after referred to as "Act").
(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that an institute named Vidya Bikash Educational Trust placed an order of 66 HCL Desktop Computers with the respondent company having its registered office at Nehru Place, New Delhi through the petitioner company situated at Orissa. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioners issued two cheques bearing no. 235609 and 235610 for Rs. 4,00,000/-as security against the supply of the abovementioned desktops. On presentation of the said cheques by the respondent to its banker, they were returned unpaid with the remarks "funds insufficient" which led to the filing of the complaint case by the respondents, wherein the petitioners were summoned. Hence, the present petition. The summoning order is assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners stating that the ld. M.M. has no jurisdiction to try the case as their registered office is situated at Orissa and hence the Courts of Delhi have no jurisdiction to try the matter. It has been further submitted by the counsel that the impugned summoning order is bad in law as the cheques issued by the petitioners were issued as security for supply of the desktops by the respondents and not for the discharge of any debt or liability. In order to substantiate this allegation, the counsel has relied on the contents of the letter dated 19.05.2008 issued by the petitioners to the respondent. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the issue of jurisdiction has already been dealt with by this Court vide its order dated 17.10.2011. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel that the letter dated 19.05.2008 relied by the petitioners is forged and fabricated and cannot be relied upon by this Court. It has been further averred that the cheques were issued by the petitioners as a discharge of their part liability towards the supply of goods by the respondents and the petitioners cannot escape their liability and hence, the summoning order deserves no interference at this stage.
(3.) FIRSTLY, it must be noted that though the petitioner had taken up the issue of jurisdiction as a ground for quashing the summoning order, but in terms of order dated 17th October, 2011 of this Court, the learned counsel stated on 6th March, 2012 not to press this ground. Regarding the issue of cheques as security and not as a liability on the part of the petitioners, it would suffice to say that this is a triable issue and cannot be gone into by this Court at the present stage. In case of M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr.: (2002) 1 SCC 234, the Apex Court has held that :-- "The law is well settled that the power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very stringently and with circumspection. It is settled law that at this stage the Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint. The inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice.";