- (1.) The applicant, who is the same person in both the aforesaid applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the criminal complaint dated 4.2.1015 as well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 196 of 2016 (initially numbered as Complaint Case No. 162 of 2015) and Complaint Case No. 195 of 2016 (initially numbered as Complaint Case No. 163 of 2015) A.N. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ankush Jain, under Sections 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Shahibabad, district Ghaziabad, pending in the court of Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M. Court No. 3, Ghaziabad. Prayer has also been made to quash the summoning order dated 25.4.2015 issued against the applicant by the aforesaid court in both the complaint cases.
(2.) As the applicant, the opposite parties and the issue involved in both the applications, are the same, both these applications are being disposed of by this common order. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the records. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant of both the complaint cases, who is O.P. No. 2 in both these applications, is a Private Limited Company, registered under the Indian Companies Act. The aforesaid Company filed criminal complaints against the accused- applicant with the allegations that the complainant company was doing business with the accused- applicant since 2011. During the course of business transactions, the accused- applicant, issued two cheque nos. 000010 and 000011 each dated 31.12.2014 and each amounting to Rs. 35 lacs, in the name of the complainant Company payable at Bank of Baroda, Branch Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad. Both the said cheques were deposited in Punjab and Sindh Bank, Narayana, New Delhi, where the complainant Company was maintaining its account. However, both the cheques were dishonoured by the Banker of the accused- applicant and consequently the Banker of the complainant Company returned both the cheques with the endorsement "exceeds arrangement" along with Bank memo dated 1.1.2015. Thereafter the complainant Company, being payee of the dishonoured cheques, gave legal notices to the accused applicant on 13.1.2015. But, the accused applicant, instead of making payment of the amounts of the cheques in question within the stipulated period mentioned in the legal demand notices, replied to the said notices by his letter dated 22.1.2015, denying the payment to the complainant. Since the accused applicant, despite service of demand notices, failed to make payment of the amount mentioned in the cheques in question, the complainant Company filed the aforementioned complaints against the applicant in the court of the Judicial Magistrate. In support of the complaint, the complainant Company/ O.P. No. 2, filed some documents and affidavit of the Director of the Company as its statement under section 200 Cr.P.C. and it was entitled to do so by virtue of section 145 of the N.I. Act.
(3.) The learned Magistrate on the basis of the aforesaid affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant Company in support of its allegations, summoned the applicant for the offences punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act vide impugned order dated 25.4.2015. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid summoning orders passed by learned Magistrate, Ghaziabad, has been challenged by learned counsel for the accused-applicant, in both these applications, mainly on the ground that in view of the amendment of section 142 of the N.I. Act, which has come into force w.e.f. 15.6.2015 and is having retrospective effect, the learned Magistrate at Ghaziabad, has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints instituted by the complainant Company and to proceed against the accused- applicant on the said complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that in view of amended section 142(2) of the Act, learned Magistrate at Ghaziabad is not the competent court having jurisdiction to take cognizance and to issue process against the accused applicant and the entire proceedings pending before the court at Ghaziabad, which are wholly without jurisdiction, cannot be permitted to continue, as the same would amount to gross abuse of process of court and law and the same are liable to be quashed by this court on the ground of jurisdiction alone. Some factual aspects of the case have also been contested by learned counsel for the applicant submitting that both the cheques, which are dated 31.12.2014, drawn at Bank of Baroda, Branch Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, each amount of Rs. 35 lacs, were the security cheques given by the accused- applicant to O.P. No. 2 earlier and none of these cheques was issued in discharge of any liability or debt. The complainant Company misused the aforesaid security cheques to initiate malicious proceedings against the applicant, only for the purpose of harassment and to extort money from him. It is also submitted that the applicant had made a detailed complaint to the complainant Company earlier that the material supplied by it was defective due to which the material was lying in their godown, whereupon the Director of the complainant Company had assured that the said defective material will be taken back shortly from the godown of the applicant but despite repeated requests, the defective material was not removed by the complainant Company from the godown of the applicant and subsequently the applicant gave a legal notice to the complainant Company, informing the complainant Company, not to present the security cheques to the Banker of the Company because the applicant had stopped the payment of said security cheques. However, despite the aforesaid legal notice the complainant Company misused those cheques.;