The main legal point established is that the issuance of post-dated cheques for a balance payment constitutes an existing liability under Section 138 of the NI Act.

I.S. MEHTA, J.

1. Instant petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is arising out of the summoning order dated 16.12.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (NI Act)/West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in C.C. No. 2807/1/2014, for quashing the summoning order dated 16.12.2014, the criminal complaint CC. No. 2807/1/14 and all the consequential proceedings pending thereof before the Court of the learned MM-01 (NI Act)/West Delhi.

2. The brief facts stated are that the Second Party, i.e. Mrs. Honey Bhagat/petitioner herein along with her husband Mr. Rohit Bhagat and M/s R.V. Ganga Enterprises, purchased a property forming right hand side portion of the Third Floor of the property bearing No. 47, North Avenue Road, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi admeasuring 1365 square yards, from the First Party/vendors, i.e. Mrs. Savita Bhatia, Mr. Rajeev Narula, Mr. Rakesh Narula, Mr. Hitesh Narula, represented by their General Attorney-Shri Praleen Chopra/respondent herein.

3. The petitioner also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 01.11.2013 with the vendors, represented by the respondent as their Attorney and by virtue of the said MOU the vendors agreed to sell the right hand side portion of the Third Floor of the property bearing No. 47, North Avenue Road, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi admeasuring 1365 square yards, for a total sale consideration of Rs. 7,31,00,000/- (Rupees seven crores thirty one lacs only). Out of the aforesaid total sale consideration the Second Party paid a sum of Rs. 4,50,00,000/- (Rupees four crores fifty lacs only) and thereafter the First Party executed the sale deed in respect of the aforesaid property in favour of the Second Party.

4. The remaining payment of Rs. 2,81,00,000/- (Rupees two crores eighty one lacs only) was to be paid by the Second Party to the First Party within two months from the date of the MOU dated 01.11.2013. Accordingly, the petitioner handed over two cheques bearing Nos. 053369 & 053365 both drawn on Union Bank of India, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi for a sum of Rs. 1,31,00,000/- (Rupees one crores thirty one lacs only) and Rs. 1,50,00,000/- (Rupees one crores fifty lacs only) respectively to the the respondent herein.

5. Thereafter, on 26.04.2014 the respondent/complainant filed a complaint, i.e. CC. No. 2807/1, qua against the petitioner before the Court of learned CMM, (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi for the offence committed under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on dishonouring of a cheque, i.e. cheque no. 053369 of Rs. 1,31,00,000/- (Rupees one crores thirty one lacs only), drawn on Union Bank of India, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi- 110026.

6. It is alleged in the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant that the petitioner towards the discharge of part of the admitted legal liability had issued the cheque in favour of the respondent/complainant and when the respondent/complainant presented the aforesaid cheque with its banker namely Punjab National Bank, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi for its encashment the cheque was returned unpaid/dishonoured vide return memo dated 16.02.2014 with the remarks “Funds Insufficient”.

7. Consequently, the respondent/complainant issued legal demand notice dated 13.03.2014 which was duly served upon the petitioner on 21.03.2014. The petitioner replied to the said legal demand notice vide reply dated 06.05.2014. However, when the petitioner failed to make the payment despite expiry of 15 days notice period, the respondent/complainant was constrained to file a complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. However, the said complaint was returned to the respondent/complainant due to lack of jurisdiction and vide order dated 18.11.2014 the learned MM-06, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi directed filing of the said complaint in the court having territorial jurisdiction in compliance of the directio