IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the non-mentioning of details with regard to previous petitions and the order disposing of the said petitions was not deliberate material concealment on part of the non-applicant.

JUDGMENT

Amit Sharma, J. - The present applications filed on behalf of the applicant/respondent no. 1, i.e., Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. in CRL.MA 17894/2023 and CRL.MA 17817/2023 and M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd. in CRL.MA 17815/2023 (collectively referred to as 'the applicant') seek a common relief, i.e., dismissal of the captioned petitions filed by the non-applicant/petitioner, i.e., Yashovardhan Birla ('the non-applicant') on the ground of fraud and initiation of proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') against him. Vide order dated 04.11.2023, this Court had reserved orders in the interim applications, recording as under:

"CRL.M.A. 17894/2023 (Directions) in CRL.M.C. 3778/2023

CRL.M.A. 17815/2023 (Directions) in CRL.M.C. 3779/2023

CRL.M.A. 17817/2023 (Directions) in CRL.M.C. 3780/2023

1. The pleadings in the captioned petitions i.e. CRL.M.C. 3778/2023, CRL.M.C. 3779/2023 and CRL.M.C. 3780/2023 are complete and hence they were listed for hearing today.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.1 in the present applications submits that the applications may be decided at the first instance before the petitions are heard on merit.

3. Accordingly, arguments have been heard.

4. Order is reserved."

2. The captioned petitions, i.e., CRL.MC 3778/2023, CRL.MC 3779/2023 and CRL.MC 3780/2023 seek quashing of CC No. 31528/2016, CC No. 31517/2016 and CC No. 31829/2016, respectively, instituted by the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('NI Act'), pending in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, Delhi and setting aside of summoning orders 09.11.2012 and orders dated 31.10.2021 whereby notice under Section 251 of the CrPC has been framed against the non-applicant.

3. A brief background of the lis between the parties is that the complaint cases which are the subject matter of the captioned petitions were instituted by the applicant against the non-applicant and other accused persons subsequent to dishonor of three separate cheques in the sum of Rs. 3,00,00,000/-. Rs. 2,00,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,00,000/- issued in discharge of an alleged liability of respondent no.2/company towards the applicant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant respondent no.1, in support of the present applications, made the following submissions:-

4.1. It was submitted that the non-applicant had filed three petitions at an earlier point of time under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking similar reliefs, i.e., CRL.MC. 1646/2013, CRL.MC. 1642/2013 and CRL.MC. 1644/2013 titled 'Mr. Yasohvardhan Birla v. M/s Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd.'. It was submitted that the said petitions were dismissed as withdrawn by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide orders dated 14.08.2014 and liberty was granted to the non-applicant to agitate the grounds taken in the said petitions before the learned Trial Court at the time of hearing on the point of notice under Section 251 of the CrPC. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the non-applicant has intentionally concealed the factum of the filing and withdrawal of the said earlier petitions from this Court.

4.2. It was further submitted that the non-applicant has further concealed that the fact that none of the grounds taken in the earlier petitions were pleaded at the time of framing of notice under Section 251 of the CrPC before the learned Trial Court, as was specifically stated at the time of withdrawal of the said petitions.

4.3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the nonapplicant has misrepresented that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate framed a notice under Section 251 of the CrPC without considering that fact that he was a Non-Executive Director of the accused company/respondent no. 2, which was a ground taken in the earlier petitions. It was submitted that the said ground was taken by the non-applicant only after framing of notice under Section 251 of the CrPC. Attention of this Cour