JUDGMENT :

Anu Malhotra, J.

1. The petitioner namely Mr. Har Sarup Bhasin vide the present petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 20.02.2017 of the Trial Court of the learned MM-01, New Delhi and the quashing of the complaint i.e. CC No.45442/2016 vide which the petitioner was summoned for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The said complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been filed by the complainant M/s Origo Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. arrayed as the respondent to the present petition against the persons arrayed as the accused nos. 1 to 7 i.e. M/s Dinesh Oil Limited, Mr. Dinesh Arora, Ms. Shalini Arora, Mr. Narendra Sharma, Mr. Shyam Kant Tiwari, Mr. Har Sarup Bhasin and Mr. Nikit Rastogi and the petitioner herein arrayed as the respondent no.6 to the said complaint case.

2. The complainant i.e. the respondent through the complaint has alleged that the accused no.1 i.e. M/s Dinesh Oil Limited (hereinafter referred to as the accused company) had availed the services of the complainant i.e. the respondent by way of sale of 250 metric tones of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) in bulk vide Bill of Lading No.DUM/KDL-01 dated 17.03.2016 at the rate of Rs.43,381.10/- per MT which were supplied by the respondent to the accused company pursuant to an agreement for procurement services dated 07.01.2016 executed between the parties. The complainant had averred in the complaint that the accused company was engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing edible/ vegetable oils and other agricultural commodities and that the accused no.2 was the Managing Director and the Whole Time Director of the accused company and that the accused nos. 3 to 7 are the whole time Directors of the accused No.1 the accused company and that the accused nos. 2 to 7 are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the day to day business of the accused No.1company towards the payment in relation to the services received by the accused No.1 the accused company towards part discharge of its liability to pay the outstanding amount to the complainant i.e. the respondent herein, the accused No.1 company inter alia drew two cheques bearing No.185261 & 185259 dated 01.06.2016 and 07.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- each drawn on the State Bank of India, SME Branch, Sarvoday Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh which were returned unpaid due to reason of insufficient funds vide a cheque return memo dated 02.06.2016 and 09.06.2016.

3. Through the complaint, it has been stated by the complainant i.e. the respondent that after the issuance of the cheques in discharge of its liability, the accused had failed to make arrangements in their bank for honouring the said cheques and had thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and that the accused nos. 2 to 7 were in active connivance with the accused no.1 to take malafide steps to ensure the dishonour of the cheques. The complainant i.e. the respondent has further stated through the complaint that it had complied with all the requirements of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in as much as the cheques in question were presented within the period of their validity and that the demand for the payment was made to the accused on 15.06.2016 within 30 days of the receipt of the information regarding the dishonouring of the cheques on 02.06.2016 and 09.06.2016 but that the accused failed to make the payment within 15 days of the notice and sent a reply dated 29.07.2016 taking baseless defences.

4. Vide the impugned summoning order dated 20.02.2017, it was observed by the learned Trial Court to the effect:-

"20.02.2017

Present: AR for complainant in person along with Ld. Counsel.

File perused. Heard.

Evidence by way of affidavit tendered by AR of complainant. Original documents have been filed on record along with the complaint. Statement of AR of complainant re