Rajnish Wadhera VS R. S. V. Enterprises

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. D.M. Bhalla, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.

Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Complaint alleging dishonor of cheque—Petition for quashment—Once the business dealings between the complainant and petitioners was admitted and legal notice served by complainant respondent was received by petitioners and they chose not to file any rely, a presumption could be drawn that they were liable to make payment of the cheque in question—Complaint as well as summoning order could not be quashed on ground that there was no proper enquiry before issuing the summons under Section 202 CrPC or that the notice could not be served as the factory had been closed down—Since petitioner concealed and not placed on record, second notice which was sent after making the necessary corrections, petition held liable to be dismissed.
       Held: As per the affidavit dated 04.05.2010, filed by the complainant company, two legal notices were sent to the petitioners, one on 10.03.2008 and the second on 12.03.2008, as there were some amendments required for correction of the name of the complainant. Both the legal notices were within limitation and were made by registered A.D. and U.P.C. This fact has not been mentioned by the petitioners, as in the amended legal notice dated 12.03.2008, the correct name of M/s R.S.V. Enterprises has been stated. The objection of the petitioners that the initial notice 10.03.2008 (Annexure P-6) was sent by M/s Sukhma Sons & Associates, Mahipalpur Extension, New Delhi, is liable to be rejected, as in the second notice dated 12.03.2008, correction in the name of the complainant was made and this fact has been concealed at the time of filing of the present petition. The petitioners have not denied in their petition that they had Prasher Ajay dealt with the complainant company on earlier occasions and cheque in question had been given to the respondent company in discharge of their legal liability. Since no reply was given to the legal notice dated 12.03.2008, a presumption is drawn in favour of the holder of the cheque i.e. the petitioner company that the petitioners were liable to make payment with the cheque was presented. On not doing so, the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 12.03.2008, to which, they did not choose to file any reply. The plea, taken is that their office at Noida had been closed down. The complaint had been made against Rajneesh Wadhera, who has been authorized by the Board resolution to deal with the matter. Hence, the complaint was maintainable against Rajneesh Wadhera and the petitioner company. Once, the business dealings between the complainant and petitioners are admitted and the legal notice dated 12.03.2008 was served by the complainant-respondent, which was received by the petitioners and they chose not to file any reply, a presumption can be drawn that they were liable to make payment of the cheque in question. Moreover, the cheque was presented for encashment. However, same was returned unpaid with the remarks “payment stopped by drawer”.
       The complaint as well as the summoning order cannot be quashed on the ground that there was no proper enquiry, before issuing the summons, under Section 202 Cr.P.C. or that the notice could not be served as the factory at Noida had been closed down. Since the petitioners have concealed and not placed on record the second notice dated 12.03.2008, which was sent after making the necessary corrections, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
       Moreover, since the parties were having business dealings in Prasher Ajay the past, therefore, no further enquiry was required to be made by the Magistrate, as contemplated under Section 202 Cr.P.C., before issuing summons to the petitioners.
       Resultantly, finding no merits in the present petition, the same is hereby dismissed
       Result: Petition dismissed.