J.P. SINGH, J.—THIS PETITION UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE HAS BEEN FILED FOR QUASHING SUMMONING Order DATED 4-3-1996 PASSED BY LEARNED METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE IN A COMPLAINT CASE UNDER SECTION 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. THERE IS ALSO PRAYER FOR QUASHING THE COMPLAINT AND THE PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM.

2. I HAVE HEARD MR. VIJAY AGGARWAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AND MR. SANJEEV ANAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO. 2 (COMPLAINANT) ON THE POINT OF ADMISSION AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED Order AS ALSO COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON THE FILE.

3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE THAT PETITIONER AND OTHERS APPROACHED THE COMPLAINANT COMPANY FOR AVAILING “INTER-CORPORATE DEPOSIT” OF RS. 50 LACS FOR A PERIOD OF 82 DAYS FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THE SAID REQUEST WAS CONSIDERED AND THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 50 LACS WAS GIVEN ON 13-9-1995 AGAINST PROMISSORY NOTE AND RECEIPT EXECUTED BY THE ACCUSED COMPANY. THE COMPANY ALSO HANDED OVER TWO POST-DATED CHEQUES ON THE SAID DATE WITH A CLEAR STIPULATION THAT THE SAID CHEQUES WOULD BE HONOURED POSITIVELY ON PRESENTATION. CHEQUE NO. 016303 DATED 4-12-1995 WAS FOR RS. 50 LACS WHILE CHEQUE NO. 016304 DATED 4-12-1995 WAS FOR RS. 2,07,584/- AS INTEREST AMOUNT ON MATURITY.

4. ON MATURITY OF THE AFORESAID CHEQUE THE ACCUSED COMPANY CALLED UPON THE COMPLAINANT AND REQUESTED NOT TO PRESENT THE CHEQUE FOR RS. 50 LACS AS THE ACCUSED COMPANY HAD CHANGED ITS BANK AND IN LIEU THEREOF ANOTHER CHEQUE NO. 990951 DATED 6-12-1995 WAS GIVEN. THE EARLIER CHEQUES WAS OF BANK OF BARODA AND THE SECOND CHEQUE WAS OF BANK OF MADURA, BOTH HAVING BRANCHES IN NEW DELHI. ACCORDINGLY THE COMPLAINANT COMPANY PRESENTED THE SAID CHEQUES BUT BOTH THE CHEQUES WERE DISHONOURED, ON THE GROUND “EFFECTS NOT YET CLEARED, PLEASE PRESENT AGAIN” THIS WAS FOR THE CHEQUE OF RS. 50 LACS ON BANK OF MADURA AND REGARDING THE OTHER CHEQUE ON INTEREST THE REMARK OF THE BANK WAS “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS”.

5. IT IS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT THAT THE ACCUSED PERSONS HAD DELIBERATELY AND A FRAUDULENTLY CAUSED WRONGFUL LOSS TO THE COMPLAINANT BY ISSUING THE CHEQUES ON FALSE PROMISES KNOWING THAT THEY HAD NO ARRANGEMENTS FOR HONOURING THE SAID CHEQUES.

6. IT IS AVERRED IN PARA 6 OF THE COMPLAINT THAT ALL THE ACCUSED —ACCUSED NO. 1 AS COMPANY, ACCUSED NOS. 2-7 ARE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY AND ACCUSED NO. 8 AS MANAGER/PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE COMPANY MANAGING THE DAY-TO-DAY CONDUCT OF THE BUSINESS AND AFFAIRS OF THE ACCUSED NO. 1 COMPANY HAVE PLAYED A FRAUD ON THE COMPLAINANT COMPANY UPON WHICH THE COMPLAINANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO TAKE APPROPRIATE LEGAL ACTION. THE LEARNED MM PASSED THE FOLLOWING SUMMONING Order ON 4-3-1996:

4.3.96

Present: Complainant with Counsel.

Two CWs present recorded CE closed. Arguments heard. It is argued that complainant filed this complaint on the ground that complainant issued inter-corporate loan to respondent No. 1 through its Director and Principal Officer respondent Nos. 2 to 8.

IT IS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF THIS AMOUNT RESPONDENT NO. 1 THROUGH RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 8 ISSUED THE CHEQUES IN DISPUTE WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK FOR ENCASHMENT ON 4-12-1995, 6-12-1995 WHICH WERE RETURNED UNPAID WITH THE REMARKS “INSUFFICIENT FUNDS” AND “EFFECTS NOT CLEAR”. LEGAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 20-12-1995 WHICH WAS SERVED ON RESPONDENT ON 21-12-1995 AS PER AD CARD. IN SPITE OF THAT NOTICE RESPONDENT HAVE NOT PAID ANY AMOUNT HENCE ON 17-1-1996 THIS COMPLAINT IS INSTITUTED.

IN SUPPORT OF ITS COMPLAINANT EXAMINED ITS OFFICER AND ONE OFFICER FROM BANK. BESIDE THIS A NUMBER OF DOCUMENT INCLUDING PHOTOSTAT COPIES OF THE BANK MEMOS, LEGAL NOTICE, ETC. PROVED IN THE FILE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE COMPLAINT STATEMENT OF THE WITNESSES AND THE DOCUMENTS AT THIS STAGE I CONSIDER IT PROPER THAT THERE ARE SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO PROCEED AGAINST ALL THE RESPONDENTS UNDER SECTION 138, NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT. ISSUE PROCESS AGAINST THEM ON FILING OF PF, COPY, ETC