O R D E R

% 30.08.2022 CRL. M.C. 2385/2022 & CRL.M.A. 10072/2022 (interim relief)

1. Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing the impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate („MM‟), Negotiable Instruments Act („NI Act‟) Saket District Court (South District) in Complaint Case (CC) No. 13445/2017 (Aruna Gupta v. Concept Horizon Infra. Pvt Limited &

Ors) and all proceeding emanating therefrom.

2. The background facts leading to the present case are that respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of NI Act against the petitioner herein, i.e., Jeevesh Sabharwal, Mr. Suninder Sandha, Concept Horizon Infra Pvt. Ltd. („CHIPL‟), one Mr. Nitant Verma (also a Director of CHIPL) and M/s Karvy Private Wealth on 23.11.2017. It is stated in the complaint that CHIPL had approached respondent no. 1 herein through M/s Karvy Private Wealth for booking of a banquet admeasuring 256sq.ft. under an assured buy-back scheme along with profits in the project „Orrizonte‟. It is further stated that that respondent No.1 booked the aforesaid banquet by allegedly paying a sum of Rs. 9,71,667 along with a sum of Rs. 40,810 towards service tax to CHIPL. For this purpose, Mr. Sandha, in his capacity as the then director of CHIPL had signed a Memorandum of Understanding („MOU‟) dated 22.07.2015 with respondent No.1 along with her son Amit Gupta/respondent No.2 herein. A per Clause 2 of the said MOU, it was agreed that upon expiry of 24 months from the date of execution of the said MOU, respondent no. 2 would receive a complete refund of the aforesaid amount paid by her along with a premium of Rs. 1,55,467. Pursuant to this, respondent No.1 alleged that CHIPL issued 24 post-dated cheques towards the refund, which were allegedly dishonoured when presented for realization. Respondent No.1 thereafter issued a legal notice dated 14.10.2017 served upon the accused person by registered AD through her counsel. Respondent no. 1 having failed to receive reply from the accused and proceeded to file the complaint on 23.11.2017. It is pertinent to note that there is no specific assertion as to the knowledge of Mr. Amit Gupta/Respondent No.2 in the said transaction.

3. It is stated that when the matter was heard before the learned MM on 14.03.2018, an affidavit by way of evidence of respondent no. 1 along with documents were taken on record, following which the pre-summoning evidence was closed. The learned MM held that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner herein, alogn with the other accused except M/s. Karvy Private Wealth and directed that the accused persons be summoned.

4. It is further stated that on 11.12.2019 the petitioner filed an application under Section 145(2) NI Act seeking an opportunity to cross-examine respondent No.1 and submitted that there was no legally subsisting debt as on the date of deposit of the cheques in question since it was a buyback scheme subject to certain conditions in the MOU which had not been met by respondent No.1, including, inter alia, undertaking to return/hand over all receipts issued by to her. The petitioner subsequently found out that Mr. Suninder Sandha was perpetuating a series of frauds upon the petitioner, CHIPL as well as their customers at the time of signing the MOU, for which he and CHIPL took immediate criminal as well as civil legal remedies. Thus, the petitioner wanted to adduce the necessary documentary and oral evidence to establish their defence, and also sought an opportunity to cross-examine her (respondent no. 1 herein).

5. It is stated that by an order dated 9.10.2021 while allowing the Petitioner‟s application under Section 145 (2) of NI Act, the learned MM took the view that “given the nature of the accusation made by the complainant and the defence taken by the accused, it would be undesirable that the accused shall be tried summarily and since the Court has already allowed recalling of the c