JUDGMENT

1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioner seeks setting aside and quashing of Complaint Case No.7398/2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [NIA] filed by the respondent no.2/complainant [respondent no.2] against the petitioner/accused no.2 therein [petitioner] and 3 other co-accused persons before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate [learned MM] and summoning order dated 04.10.2019 passed therein.

2. The facts disclose that the respondent no.2 first invested Rs.50,00,000/- in January 2009 and then again invested Rs.20,00,000/- in March 2014 with the petitioner and was assured a return of double the amount on or before March 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a Promissory Note dated 18.02.2019 in favour of the respondent no.2 and his wife Ms. Rupinder Kaur Bedi [wife] acknowledging his liability to pay Rs.2,47,53,000/- to them on or before 30.06.2019.

3. The petitioner then issued as many as 9 cheques all dated 16.07.2019, of which, admittedly, 6 cheques were in the name of the respondent no.2 whereas rest of the 3 cheques were in the name of his wife. All the said 9 cheques to the tune of Rs.73,00,000/- were dishonoured on presentation with the details given below:

S.No.In favour ofCheque No.AmountReason for dishonour1.Amrit Pal Singh Bedi666437Rs. 6,00,000/-"Account closed"2.Amrit Pal Singh Bedi666436Rs. 6,00,000/-"Kindly contact drawer/draw"3.Amrit Pal Singh Bedi103122Rs. 10,00,000/-"Kindly contact drawer/draw"4.Amrit Pal Singh Bedi103121Rs. 10,00,000/-"Kindly contact drawer/draw"5.Amrit Pal Singh Bedi935698Rs. 8,00,000/-"Kindly contact drawer/draw"6.Amrit Pal Singh Bedi666435Rs. 6,00,000/-"Kindly contact drawer/draw"7.Rupinder Kaur Bedi666434Rs. 8,50,000/-"Kindly contact drawer/draw"8.Rupinder Kaur Bedi666433Rs. 8,50,000/-"Kindly contact drawer/draw"9.Rupinder Kaur Bedi103120Rs. 10,00,000/-"Kindly contact drawer/draw"

4. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 and his wife issued a composite Legal Notice dated 12.08.2019 qua all the 9 cheques, which was replied by the petitioner on 27.08.2019, being unsatisfied by the same, the respondent no.2 filed a Complaint Case No.7398/2019 under Section 138 NIA with respect to all the aforesaid 9 dishonoured cheques before the learned MM, accompanied with an `Authority Letter' dated 17.08.2019 executed by the wife of the respondent no.2 in his favour wherein, the learned MM passed the summoning order dated 04.10.2019.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition directly before this Court.

6. According to the petitioner, the composite complaint qua all the 9 cheques by the respondent no.2 singularly, sans his wife, is per se not maintainable. It is also not maintainable on the strength of the `Authority Letter' dated 17.08.2019 issued by his wife in favour of the respondent no.2. Moreover, the petitioner has also challenged the veracity of the said `Authority Letter', the execution thereof and the phraseology used therein. The petitioner, in the wake of the above, contended that the impugned order passed by the learned MM issuing summons to the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on O.P. Mehra vs. Raj Kumar Bhalla & Anr., 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 1074.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the complaint is against the statutory principles contained under Section 142 NIA, as the respondent no.2 herein, not being either the payee or the holder in due course, cannot file the abovementioned complaint. Reliance was placed on Suresh Sharma Vs. New Coolwell Industries & Ors., 2009 (108) DRJ 347 and Milind Shripad Chandurkar Vs. Kalim M. Khan & Anr., (2011) 4 SCC 275.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the bank memo or the slip cannot be taken into consideration as the same is not certified by the bank in terms of Section 146 NIA. Reliance was placed on the order dated 08.08.2018 passed by the Bombay High

Click Here to Read the rest of this document