The main legal point established in this judgment is that a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be supported by an affidavit, and the court can issue process based on the contents of the complaint, supporting documents, and affidavit. The court has discretion to call the complainant for examination, but it is not mandatory. The admissibility of the cheque return memo and any alleged irregularities can be addressed during the trial.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for quashing the criminal complaint titled as Amrit Pal Singh Bedi V International Trenching Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. bearing CC no. 6735/2019 and the summoning order dated 29.08.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) passed by the court of Ms. Neha Pandey, Metropolitan Magistrate-03, West , Tis Hazari (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”).

2. The respondent no. 2/complainant (hereinafter referred to as the “respondent no. 2”) has filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “NI Act”) titled as Amrit Pal Singh Bedi V International Trenching Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. bearing CC no. 6735/2019 on the allegations that the accused no. 1 i.e. M/s International Trenching Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “accused no. 1”) is engaged in the business of trenching/fibre optic laying and allied services. The accused no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner”) and the accused no. 3, namely, Sumit Bhasin (hereinafter referred to as the “accused no. 3”) are the Directors of the accused no.1. The accused no. 4, namely, Summy Bhasin (hereinafter referred to as the “accused no. 4”) is handling the finances and accounts of the accused no. 1. The petitioner, accused no. 3 and 4 are responsible for day-to-day affairs of the accused no. 1. The petitioner and the accused no. 4 on behalf of the accused no. 1 approached the respondent no. 2 for availing the services for their business in upcoming projects and the respondent no. 2 had provided services from time to time and for which Rs.46,60,000/- was agreed to be paid by the accused no. 1 to the respondent no. 2 on or before 15.07.2018. The petitioner, accused no. 3 and 4 had failed to make the timely payment to the respondent no. 2 and thereafter, entered into a MoU dated 26.07.2018 whereby the petitioner and the accused no. 3 and 4 had agreed to pay Rs.47,53,519/- to the respondent no. 2 on or before 27.02.2019. The petitioner and the accused no.4 on 19.01.2019, issued a cheque amounting to Rs.47,53,519/- dated 15.04.2019 bearing no. 000192 drawn on HDFC Bank, Rajouri Garden in favour of the respondent no. 2 under the signature of the petitioner towards the discharge of liability. A confirmation letter under the signature of the petitioner was also issued. The accused no. 1 including the petitioner on 27.02.2019 again requested for extension of time till 01.07.2019 to make the payment of Rs.47,53,519/- alongwith confirmation letter dated 18.03.2019. The petitioner on 27.06.2019, sent an e-mail to the respondent no. 2 asking him not to present the cheque in the bank for encashment which was replied by the respondent no. 2 on 28.06.2019. The respondent no. 2 presented the said cheque to his Banker i.e. the Syndicate Bank, Rajouri Garden on 03.07.2019 which was returned back unpaid due to the reason “account blocked” vide return memo dated 04.07.2019. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 served a legal notice dated 18.07.2019 through counsel on the official address of the accused no. 1, petitioner and the accused no. 3 and 4 which was returned back with the remarks "always door locked"/not received despite repeated attempts and leaving intimation. The respondent no. 2 being aggrieved, filed a complaint.

3. The trial Court vide impugned order, took the cognizance for the offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act against the accused no. 1, petitioner and the accused number 3. The impugned order reads as under:-

This is complaint filed for offence punishable under Section 138 N.I. Act. Complaint, affidavit of evidence and other annexed documents perused. The present complaint has been filed within the limitation period.

In matter of "A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr." (2014) 11 Supreme Court Cases 790, Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:-

"