The court ruled factual disputes regarding legally enforceable debt cannot lead to quashing criminal complaints under Section 138, emphasizing the need for a full trial.

JUDGMENT :

Mitali Thakuria, J.

Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the petitoners. Also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Rahman, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, for setting aside and quashing the N.I Case No. 1262/2023 under Section 138 of N.I. Act pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, C.R. case No. 6708/2022 under Section 138 of N.I. Act pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, N.I Case No. 4247/2023 under Section 138 of N.I. Act pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, C.R. Case No. 4362/2022 under Section 138 of N.I. Act pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati and C.R. Case No. 7614/2022 under Section 138 of N.I. Act pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati.

3. The gist of the petitioner’s case is that, the petitioner No. 1 (M/s Maa Bagala Amusement Hub), represented by its Managing Partner Shri Sanjib Deka (petitioner No. 2), has executed a Lease Deed dated 30.10.2015 with the respondent for taking on lease a vacant plot of land and the lease rent was fixed at Rs. 1,60,000/- (Rupees One lakh sixty thousand) per month, subject to a 15% increase after every 3(three) years and the petitioners have always made timely payments of lease rent for the said Lease Deed into the respondent’s bank account via account payee cheques issued in the name of M/s Maa Bagala Amusement Hub. However, some dispute arose between the parties regarding the non-supply of earlier G.M.C. tax pay receipts paid by the respondent to G.M.C which caused hindrance to the petitioners in obtaining trade license from G.M.C to run their amusement hub, namely, “Frozen Planet”. Ultimately, the said hub had to be closed down by the petitioners and a dispute arose between the parties regarding GST payment, which ultimately created a deadlock between the petitioners and the respondent.

4. To the utter shock and surprise, the petitioner No. 2, received a Court summon regarding 5(five) numbers of N.I complaint case under Section 138 of N.I. Act filed by the respondent against the petitioners before the Court of the learned JMFC pertaining to post dated cheques issued in the name of M/s OM Constructions, a proprietorship firm own by the petitioner No. 2.

5. It is further stated that the petitioner never issued any post dated cheques in the name of M/s OM Constructions for paying monthly lease rent to the respondent under the Lease Deed and there is no mention of any post dated cheques issued by M/s OM Constructions in the Lease Deed dated 30.10.2015, and the petitioners had made all rental payments through account payee cheques issued in the name of M/s Maa Bagala Amusement Hub and as such, the respondent has made up a concocted story to trap the petitioner No. 2 in a criminal case and thus, 5(five) complaint cases filed against the petitioners which are nothing but an abuse of process of law and as such, these cases should be set aside and quashed.

6. It is further stated that the petitioner No. 1 also deposited an amount of Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs Eighty thousand only) to the respondent as security money to be refunded as soon as lessee vacates the land on expiry of the said Lease Deed. The respondent also