P.S. Teji, J.—The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”) has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 24.11.2015, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide which the application of the petitioner for leading evidence and summoning the witnesses was dismissed.

2. Factual matrix, emerges from the record, is that the petitioner is a company and is engaged in the business of developing real estate projects and deals with other allied activities. Respondent No.2-Ashok Manchanda is the sole proprietor of M/s Capital Builders. The respondent no.2 had filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. for commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner/accused. It was alleged in the complaint that a dispute arose between the respondent no.2-complainant and the petitioner/accused due to which the respondent no.2-complainant preferred a petition OMP No.420/2013. During the pendency of the said petition, the parties entered into a settlement dated 29.10.2013. As per the terms of the said settlement, the petitioner/accused was required to pay Rs.24 crores within 90 days of the said settlement with an interest @ 15% per annum to the complainant. The petitioner/accused failed to arrange sufficient funds in the account maintained by him and as a result of insufficiency of funds, all the six cheques issued in favour of the complainant/respondent no.2 were returned unpaid. The complaint was filed for the return of three cheques of Rs.4 crores each having Nos.000143, 000146 and 000147 drawn on HDFC Bank. A statutory notice dated 10.02.2014 was sent by the complainant, but despite its receipt, the petitioner/accused failed to make the payment, thus the complaint was filed.

3. During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner/accused moved an application dated 23.10.2015 for leading defence evidence and for summoning eight witnesses. The said application was dismissed by the Trial Court vide impugned order dated 24.11.2015. It was observed by the Trial Court that all the witnesses mentioned in the application were required for producing records to establish the fact which took place prior to execution of settlement agreement dated 29.10.2013. It was further observed that both the parties were well aware of the dispute pertaining to the land in question as well as the pending litigation at the time of entering into the settlement agreement. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:

“The examination of the proposed witnesses is not necessary to establish the defence of the accused that proceeding u/s 138 N.I. Act are not maintainable in respect of the impugned cheques by virtue of clause II of settlement agreement and therefore, request of the accused persons to summon the witnesses mentioned in serial no: i to viii is declined.

Accused persons are at liberty to file appropriate application for their examination u/s 315 Cr.P.C.”

4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned order dated 24.11.2015, the present petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

5. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the witnesses cited by the petitioner are necessary for proving the defence of the accused who are either party to the Development Rights Agreement (DRA) dated 05.06.2012 or the official witnesses. The complainant has admitted that the full and final agreement dated 29.10.2013 was executed as there was some dispute with respect to the DRA. It is further argued that there was no legally enforceable debt and the cheques have been misused by the complainant. Counsel for the petitioner wants to further interpret the agreement dated 29.10.2013 by examining those witnesses.

6. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment of Allahabad High Court in case of Asif Hussa