Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.
M/s. Texcel Infotech (P) Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
State of NCT and Anr —Respondents
Cri M.C. No. 1169 of 2013
Decided on 14.11.2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Ashok Anand with Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar and Mr. Shwetank Sailakwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1: Mr. M.P. Singh, APP for the State.
For the Respondent No. 2:Mr. Upinder Dhindsa, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
It open to petitioner to take plea of limitation before trial court and trial court will consider the same in accordance with law.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Summoning order — Challenged — Payment stopped — Despite service of statutory notice petitioner failed to make payment — After recording pre-summoning evidence petitioner summoned — HELD — Petitioner take the plea of limitation before trial court — Petition dismissed. [Para 6]
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Ved Prakash Vaish, J.—This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against summoning order dated 30.7.2012 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CC No.472/12 titled as Anil Khosla v. Texcel Infotech (P) Ltd.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent No.2/complainant filed complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) against the petitioner on the allegations, inter alia, that the petitioner took a short term loan of Rs.15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen lakhs) from the complainant for a period of 90 days for purchasing software licenses for LPR System from M/s. Syac and issued cheque Nos.626972, 626973, 626974 for Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees Five lakhs) each and 626975 for Rs.50,000 (Rupees Fifty thousand), all dated 1.11.2011 and drawn on Corporation Bank, Secunderabad Branch. On presentation the said cheques were returned with the remarks “payment stopped by drawer”. Despite service of statutory notice dated 25.4.2012, the petitioner failed to make payment.
3. After recording pre-summoning evidence, the petitioner was summoned for the offence under Section 138 of NI Act vide impugned order dated 30.7.2012.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submissions. The first submission is that the respondent No.2 presented the cheques after expiry of one year and the second submission is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The copies of cheque returning memos have been placed the order. The cheque Nos. 626972, 626973, 626974 for Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees Five lakhs) each and 626975 for Rs.50,000(Rupees Fifty thousand) all dated 1.11.2011 and drawn on Corporation Bank, Secunderabad Branch were returned by the banker of the petitioner vide return memo dated 24.3.2012 with the remarks payment stopped by drawer, which shows that the cheques were deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated period. 5. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the cheque was deposited within the period of limitation. It is suffice to mention that as per complaint, notice dated 25.4.2012 was served on the petitioner on 27.4.2012. The complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed on 21.6.2012. He also submits that the Courts of learned Metropolitan Magistrate were closed from 11.6.2012 to 20.6.2012 and the complaints were filed on the reopening of the Court, therefore, the complaint is within the limitation.
6. So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint is barred by limitation is concerned, it is suffice to mention that it is open to the petitioner to take the plea of limitation before the trial court and the trial court will consider the same in accordance with law.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the (petition) is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed.
Cri. M.A. No. 3623/2013
The application is dismissed as infructuous.
Application dismissed
*********
