9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aint Case No. CC 14338/2018 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act, 1881"). 2. The petitioner, the sole Proprietor of the Firm M/s Periyar Hybrid Seeds Company is involved in the business of trading and packaging of seeds. The respondent No. 2-complainant is the sole Proprietor of M/s Sri Jee Traders and was the supplier of seeds/pulses to the petitioner. In their business dealings, they entered into various Pledge Agreements. 3. According to the respondent No. 2-complainant, an amount of Rs. 57,15,000/- was outstanding against the petitioner for which the petitioner issued two Cheques bearing No. 061300 dated 06.08.2018 and No. 71789 dated 14.08.2018 dated 14.08.2018 in the sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2018. The respondent No. 2-complainant/her husband thereafter contacted the Agricultural Department to permit them to carry out the inspection in seven days and the date was fixed as 06.09.2018. 8. It is submitted that 04.09.2018, it came to the knowledge of the Agricultural Department that the seal put by its Officers was illegally broken and an FIR bearing No. 710/2018 under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was accordingly registered. 9. Further, on 06.09.2018, when the petitioner approached the go down for inspection, he found that though the seals were broken, the godown was locked, but neither the respondent No. 2-complainant nor her husband came to their godown even after many calls. Thereafter, the Agricultural Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Pramod Lohia who has a criminal background and has several cases against him, is the brain child behind the present Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881. In the Ledger Book, Ex. CW1/14, the amount demanded from the petitioner was not towards the sale, as is evident from the ledger account. In any case, the authenticity of the Ledger account is denied. The petitioner has claimed that one matter bearing Crl. Rev. Pet. 619/2019 is already pending before this Court, wherein the Court was pleased to peruse the entire transaction between the parties and grant the stay Order. The FIR No. 826/2018 under S.406 IPC Police Station Samaypur Badli, Delhi in regard to this transaction, already stands registered. 16. It is submitted that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the defence of the petitioner that the ledger accounts on which the respondent No. 2-complainant has relied, are not correct.
22. It is quite evident from the submissions made that there is no denial to the issuance of the cheques and its subsequent dishonour on the ground of insufficiency of funds.
23. All the contentions raised by way of present petition are, in fact, the defence of the petitioner which are required to be proved during the trial.
24. In view of foregoing discussions, there is no infirmity in the impugned Summoning Order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in Complaint Case No. CC 14338/2019.
25. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending Application is hereby dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
