Mukta Gupta, J.

1. By the present petition the petitioner M/s Unicon Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘Unicon’) seeks quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No.3967/1 titled as ‘Shri Gopal Dass vs. Unicon Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’ pending in the Court learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘NI Act’) qua the petitioner and also quashing of the summoning order dated 24th June, 2011.

2. A brief exposition of facts leading to filing of complaint is that the respondent No.1 Gopal Dass and six other persons namely Mahesh Kumar, Santosh, Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Ashok Das, Ankur Singhal and Tilak Raj Ahuja issued a legal notice through the counsel to Unicon under Section 138 NI Act on 26th February, 2011 stating that Unicon had received an amount of Rs.5,98,600/- individually for booking of an apartment in Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (in short ‘Today Homes’) and a Memorandum of Understanding in this regard was signed and executed by Shri Nikhil Nigam, Regional Head, Gurgaon of Today Homes. Unicon promised to repay the principal amount with appreciation totalling to a sum of Rs.9,78,600/- and had issued cheque No. 445803 for a sum of Rs.78,28,800/- drawn on Standard Chartered Bank, Sansad Marg dated 28th January, 2011 to Gopal Dass, representative of all the noticee.

3. On 29th January, 2011 on presentation, the said cheque was returned unpaid with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant tried to contact telephonically and thereafter a meeting was held with Jitesh Kalra and Tomar who promised necessary payments on 19th February, 2011 however, the promise was not fulfilled. Thus Unicon was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.78,28,800/- along with an interest of 18% per annum from the date of dishonor of cheque, that is, 29th January, 2011 till payment and a further sum of Rs.15,000/- as cost and expenses for sending the legal notice within 15 days of receipt of the legal notice. A reply to the legal notice was sent by Unicon to Gopal Dass and others on 10th March, 2011. It was stated that Unicon was only a consultant and Gopal Dass had booked two apartments with Today Homes by depositing the cheques mentioned and Unicon was in no way responsible for payment.

4. Gopal Dass re-presented the cheque which was again dishonored vide return memo dated 7th April, 2011 with the remarks ‘funds insufficient’. Hence a fresh notice was issued by the counsel on behalf of Gopal Dass to Unicon and Nikhil Nigam, authorized signatory of Unicon on 5th May, 2011. Again a reply was sent by Unicon to the counsel on 18th May, 2011 stating that no cause of action arose against Unicon.

5. Hence Gopal Dass filed a criminal complaint being Complaint Case No.3967/1 titled as ‘Shri Gopal Dass vs. Unicon Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.’ in the Court learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Sections 138 and 142 of NI Act whereon summons were issued to both Unicon and Nikhil Nigam vide order dated 24th June, 2011.

6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner Unicon is twofold. Firstly, that the cheque was signed by Nikhil Nigam not as authorized signatory of Unicon but in his individual capacity and thus Unicon could not be made liable for non-payment. Secondly, it is urged that the complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action accrued to the petitioner for filing of the complaint when payment was not made after a lapse of 15 days from the receipt of the first notice dated 26th February, 2011. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 1998 (6) SCC 514 Sadanandan Bhadran vs. Madhavan Sunil Kumar and 2005 (4) SCC 417 Prem Chand Vijay Kumar vs. Yashpal Singh & Anr.

7. It is not disputed by learned counsel for Gopal Dass, respondent No.1 that the cheque was signed by Nikhil Nigam and there is no endorsement that it was on or behalf of Unicon.

8. Section 141 NI Act provides that