- (1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the complaint filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the N.I. Act) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
(2.) Few facts first, M/s. Bibby Financial Services India Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under the N.I. Act pleading that the complainant company had granted factorying facility to M/s. Ramsarup Industries Ltd. and accordingly M/s Ramsarup Industries vide letter dated 09.11.2009 had intimated M/s. S.S.S. Loha Marketing Company about the agreement with the complainant company. Accused no.1 vide letter dated 19.11.2009, assured the complainant company that they shall be making all payments in respect of the sale invoices raised by M/s Ramsarup Industries as per their agreement. They further assured in their letter that they would be making all the payments in respect of the outstanding invoices amounting to Rs.4,00,06,655.52/-. Accused nos.1 to 4 in discharge of the above said debt and existing liability towards the complainant company issued a cheque drawn on Bank of Baroda in the name of complainant. The complainant deposited cheque No.562949 dated 23.02.2010 for the above amount with their banker M/s. Indus Ind Bank, Gurgaon for realization. The cheque was returned with the remarks that the funds were not sufficient. The complainant company through their counsel called upon the accused to make the payment.
(3.) It was averred that accused nos.2 to 4 were the managing director/directors/authorized signatories of M/s S.S.S. Loha Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and they were responsible for day-to-day act, conduct and affairs of the business as well as the liabilities of accused no.1. A notice was sent through Regd. A.D. The payment was not made. The accused, however, sent a reply dated 03.06.2010 raising pleas that the cheque in question was a security cheque and it was not issued in discharge of any liability. The complainant's plea further was that vide letter dated 19.11.2009, the complainant company had already acknowledged that they had issued the cheque for payment of this amount and the accused persons in order to avoid the outstanding payment had cooked up a fictitious story.;