The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the requirement of issuing legal demand notices within 30 days of receiving information about the dishonor of the cheques, as mandated by Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. - The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint Nos. 20581/2016, 15489/2016 and 941/2017 respectively, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, qua the petitioners. While petitioner No.1 is the accused Company, petitioner No.2 is its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2. The above-noted petitions arise out of different complaints filed under Section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the N.I. Act') and involve the same parties. Accordingly, the petitions are taken up for hearing together and shall be disposed of by a common order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned criminal complaints are not maintainable qua the petitioners, as the relevant legal demand notices were issued after the expiry of statutory period of 30 days set out under the N.I. Act. It is contended that the said notices being invalid, the necessary ingredients of Section 138(b) N.I. Act are not satisfied and thus, the impugned criminal complaints ought to be quashed.

4. I have heard the submissions made as well as perused the material placed on record.

5. A reading of the case records would show that the respondent/complainant is a Company engaged in the business of lending of financial assistance for renewable energy projects. Pursuant to the petitioner Company approaching it for a loan facility, a transaction was entered into between the complainant Company and the petitioner Company, in due course whereof, three cheques dated 31.03.2015, 30.09.2015 and 30.06.2016 respectively were issued by the petitioner Company in favor of the complainant Company towards partial discharge of its liability. However, the cheques in question got dishonored upon presentation and were returned vide return memos dated 29.05.2015, 19.10.2015 and 21.07.2016 respectively with the remarks 'drawer sign differ' and 'no funds'.

The complainant Company is stated to have received return statements from its Bank on 19.06.2015, 29.10.2015 and 27.07.2016 in respect of the aforesaid cheques, indicating that the same had got dishonored. Consequently, it posted legal demand notices on 07.07.2015, 28.11.2015 and 26.08.2016 respectively calling upon the petitioner Company to repay the debt owed within 15 days of receipt of the notices. When the due amount was not repaid within the statutory period, the impugned criminal complaints came to be filed against the petitioners, who as noted above are the accused Company and its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory respectively.

The details of the aforesaid complaints are summarized in the table given below: -

6. In the criminal complaints, it was alleged that the complainant Company had sanctioned and disbursed a loan facility of Rs.2014.00 lacs to the petitioner Company, as per the loan agreement dated 07.12.2005. In order to discharge its liability, the petitioner Company had issued various cheques, of which 3 cheques, as mentioned in the complaints, got dishonored and the factum of dishonor of the cheques was notified to the complainant Company by its Bank vide the aforesaid return statements.

Insofar as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it was specifically alleged that he is/was the Managing Director/Authorized Signatory of the petitioner Company, who had signed the cheques in question. It was further alleged that at the relevant time, petitioner No. 2 was not only in-charge and responsible