TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce. This inherent jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment - petition dismissed. - CRL.M.C. 5572/2022 & CRL. M.A. 22087/2022 (stay) - - - Dated:- 10-11-2022 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA Petitioners Through: Mr. Anoop Prakash Awasthi, Advocate Respondent Through: None JUDGMENT AMIT SHARMA J . 1. The present petition has been instituted under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 07.07.2022, passed by Sh. Sanjay Sharma II Additional Sessions Judge 03, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Criminal Revision No. 286/2022, titled M/s Whitefields Overseas Ltd. Ors v. M/s DIAT Agro Holding Pvt. Ltd.; dismissing the said revision petition qua the present petitioners. Vide the said revision petition, the petitioners had sought setting aside of summoning order dated 28.01.2022, passed by Ms. Akansha Gautam, Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act), Digital Court 02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi; in C.C. No. 2352/2021, whereby the petitioners, along with others, were summoned for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ification in the form of affidavit of evidence, there are sufficient grounds for proceeding further against the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act. Let summons be issued to the accused for being the drawer of the cheque on filing of PF/RC/AD/speed post as well as through all permissible modes returnable on 01.04.2022. Summons be issued to the accused No. 1, 2, 3 4 as per the address mentioned in the complaint. Service is directed to be effected on the physical address as well as virtual address of the accused No. 1, 2, 3 4. B) Aggrieved by the above summoning order, the petitioners herein (M/s Whitefields Overseas Ltd. and Mr. Sumeet Saluja), Mr. Vijay Kumar Saluja and Smt. Rupa Saluja filed a revision petition being Crl. Rev. No. 286/2022 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge 03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts. The learned ASJ, in the impugned order, recorded that admittedly, Mr. Sumeet Saluja (petitioner no.2) is the Managing Director and the authorized signatory of M/s Whitefields Overseas Ltd (petitioner no. 1); Mr. Vijay Kumar Saluja and Smt. Rupa Saluja (not arrayed as parties in the present petition) are directors. It was furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of receipt of demand notice. In MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan and Another, (2013) 1 SCC 177, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under: 14. A careful reading of the above provisions makes it manifest that a complaint under Section 138 can be filed only after cause of action to do so has accrued in terms of clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 which, as noticed earlier, happens no sooner than when the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of the cheque amount to the payee or the holder of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the notice required to be sent in terms of clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 of the Act. 18. In the present case, the complainant filed the complaint case after non-payment of cheque amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of demand notice. Therefore, the complainant had a valid cause of action to institute the complaint case in respect of 7 cheques, as noted in the impugned order. Accordingly, criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners is partly allowed. Criminal revision petition in respect of the petitioner No. 1 and 3 is dismissed. Criminal revision petition in respect of the petitioner N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubsumes the original complaint. Non-compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement or dishonor of cheques issued subsequent to it, would then given rise to a fresh cause of action attracting liability under Section 138 of the NI Act and other remedies under civil law and criminal law. xxx 40. Thus, in our view, a complainant cannot pursue two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying transaction. Once a settlement agreement has been entered into by the parties, the proceedings in the original complaint cannot be sustained and a fresh cause of action accrues to the complainant under the terms of the settlement deed. 5. Turning over to the facts of the present case, admittedly no compromise had been arrived at between the parties to the subject complaint. The submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the cheques had been issued for the same invoices and therefore would give rise to the same cause of action is not tenable, in view of the fact that the cheques in both the complaints had allegedly been issued for discharge of liability, in part, arising out of the invoices relied upon by the respondent. It is pertinent to note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e drawee bank as unpaid either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account; (v) A notice by the payee or the holder in due course making a demand for the payment of the amount to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information from the bank in regard to the return of the cheque; and (vi) The drawer of the cheque failing to make payment of the amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course within 15 days of the receipt of the notice. 26. The ingredients of the offence were summarized in fairly similar terms in a judgment of a two judge Bench of this Court in K Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan. Justice K T Thomas observed: 14. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. The following are the acts which are components of the said offence: (1) drawing of the cheque. (2) presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
