HARVINDER SNGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint case No.818/2011 titled as ,,Vikas Grover vs. A.J.S. Builders Ltd. & Ors. for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that respondent No.2/complainant herein filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the grounds, inter alia, that accused Nos.2 to 10 along with one Mr.Prabhjot Singh (since expired), for and on behalf of respondent No.1, approached the complainant and represented that accused No.1 is having good reputation in the field of developing real estate and persuaded complainant to invest in its township project at AJS City, Ganour, Sonepat, Haryana. The accused No.2 to 10 further represented that accused No.1 has already acquired the required land and has obtained NOC, CLU and a valid licence from the concerned authorities for their said project. The accused Nos.2 to 10 represented that they are directors and/or responsible officers of accused No.1 and are persons incharge and responsible for day to day business of accused No.1 company. Upon representations and assurances, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered with the complainant on 27.10.2009, whereby it was assured that the balance outstanding/debt amount of Rs.4,34,350/ - (Rupees four lakhs thirty four thousand three hundred and fifty) was payable to complainant by accused No.1, after adjustment of payments made by accused No.1 till that date, will be paid by way of post dated cheques. The said MOU was signed and executed by accused No.11 namely Ravi Bhushan, for and on behalf of accused No.1 company. In partial discharge of the said liability, accused No.1 issued various post dated cheques including cheque Nos.003018 and 002710 dated 30.06.2010 and 20.05.2010 amounting to Rs.1,86,150/ - and Rs.62,050/ - respectively. On presentation, both the cheques were dishonoured with the remarks ,,Funds Insufficient. A statutory notice dated 15.07.2010 (posted on 20.07.2010) was served on the accused and despite service of notice, the accused persons failed to make payment of the cheques.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed petition bearing Crl.M.C. No.639/2012 which was disposed of vide order dated 29.02.2012. In the said petition, it was contended that since all contradictory orders have been passed in two complaints, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for rectification of the order and in case, the petitioner feels aggrieved, he may be permitted to assail the same by way of an appropriate remedy. Vide order dated 29.02.2012 the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn.