The technical nature of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. act, the inbuilt defences available to the accused, and the summary trial procedure were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. - The present petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

"a. QUaSH the Criminal Complaint no. CCNI act/4519/2021 filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments act and pending before the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket, New Delhi;

B. QUaSH the summoning order dated 31.08.2021 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South-East, Saket, New Delhi in Criminal Complaint No. CC NI act/$519/2021;

C. Pass any other and/or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner hererin is a proprietorship and is a civil and structural contractor carrying on its business in various states of the country. The petitioner and the respondent entered into an agreement dated 17.01.2019 whereby petitioner agreed to hire shuttering and scaffolding material from the respondent initially for a period of six months. as per the Clause 5 of this agreement, the petitioner was required to provide undated security cheque to the respondent to cover full value of the material supply. On the same day, i.e., 17.01.2019, petitioner sent an email to the respondent conveying the material required. In response, respondent reverted back an email to the petitioner conveying the calculation of advanced amount payable by the petitioner and also the amount to be paid through security cheques. The email further reveals that the amount that was to be paid to the respondent is Rs. 2,63,700/- as an advance payment and further security cheques of Rs. 77,41,000/- as security. after some negotiations, respondent agreed to accept Rs. 63,00,000/- as security cheques instead of Rs. 77,41,000/-. accordingly, the petitioner prepared 5 undated cheques totaling to amount of Rs. 63,00,000/- and one current dated cheque amounting to Rs. 2,63,700/-. Petitioner also sent an email to the respondent dated 24.01.2019 attaching the scanned copies of these six (6) cheques. Pursuant thereto the work started at the Raipur Project. During the course of work, respondent asked for monies and on that basis petitioner issued a cheque of Rs. 7,81,122/- in favour of respondent dated 28.08.2019 which was returned by Bank on 27.11.2019. Respondent sent a legal notice dated 11.12.2019 demanding the said amount then the petitioner sent a reply on 18.12.2019 stating that it would make necessary payment. Failing to which, respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 NI act before the Court of learned additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket and the petitioner was summoned for the offences under Section 138 NI act vide order dated 31.08.2021.

3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed the present petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. It has been mainly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the summoning order is bereft of reasons and has been passed in a mechanical manner and there is no enforceable debt or liability for which the respondent can demand any amount. It is submitted that the issuance of No Objection Certificate dated 08.03.2021 by the respondent admitting that no amount was payable by the petitioner, takes away the basis of filing the complaint and in the entire complaint, there is no whisper with respect to statement of account which entitles the respondent to claim the amount and also there is no averment with respect to demand being made by the respondent. It is further submitted that the complaint is based on false averment which is evident from sterling quality documents. Further, three cheques were given as the part of five cheques given by the petitioner to the respondent as security cheques and Clause 5 of the agreement between the parties clearly states that the security cheques were gi