CRL.M.C. 6853/2023 & CRL.M.C. 6863/2023

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision:16.01.2024

+

CRL.M.C. 6853/2023 & CRL.M.A. 25617/2023

JITENDRA BHATI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Mr. Nimesh

Kumar

&

Mr.

Sunil

Kumar,

Advocates.

Versus

SANTOSH DEVI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Avinash Kumar, Mr. Amarjeet,

Mr. Nitish Kumar & Mr. Tarun Bhati,

Advocates.

+

CRL.M.C. 6863/2023 & CRL.M.A. 25649/2023

JITENDRA BHATI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Mr. Nimesh

Kumar

&

Mr.

Sunil

Kumar,

Advocates.

Versus

SANTOSH DEVI

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Avinash Kumar, Mr. Amarjeet,

Mr. Nitish Kumar & Mr. Tarun Bhati,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. By way of present petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the

Digitally Signed By:MANOJ

KUMAR OHRI

Signing Date:01.02.2024

12:53:03

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 6853/2023 & CRL.M.C. 6863/2023

Page 2 of 10

petitioner seeks quashing of the Complaint Case Nos. 9213/2019 and

9214/2019 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

(hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’) both titled as ‘Santosh Devi v. M/s.

Synergy Earth Movers’ pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate,

(North-West), District Court Rohini, Delhi.

2. Considering that the facts and the parties are common as well as the

fact that the learned counsels for the parties have also addressed common

submissions, both the cases are taken up together and disposed of vide this

common judgment.

3. Briefly, the facts as available from the material placed on record are

that the respondent has alleged that M/s Synergy Earth Movers is a

proprietorship firm and the petitioner is the director/proprietor of the said

firm, looking after its day-to-day affairs. Further, it is alleged that the

petitioner approached the respondent through an offer letter providing

machinery for a project on Yamuna Expressway, and the same was accepted

by the respondent. As per the terms of the offer letter, payment would be

made by M/s Synergy Earth Movers and petitioner on the basis of the bills

raised by the respondent. In response to the bills raised by the respondent,

following 3 cheques were issued:-

4. The aforesaid cheques, when presented for encashment, were

Digitally Signed By:MANOJ

KUMAR OHRI

Signing Date:01.02.2024

12:53:03

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 6853/2023 & CRL.M.C. 6863/2023

Page 3 of 10

dishonored with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’ vide a return memo dated

06.03.2010, leading to filing of the complaint in question. It was also alleged

that though statutory notice was issued asking the petitioner s to make good

the payment however, upon his failure to pay, the complaints in question

were filed before the trial court. While the first complaint case relates to

Cheque No. 365721, the second complaint case relates to the other two

cheques bearing No.365727 and No.365728. The petitioner has raised

multifold contentions. The first contention relates to limitation inasmuch as

the demand notice was issued beyond the statutory period of 30 days.

Secondly, the petitioner is not signatory/author of the subject cheque, the

same having been being issued by one Smt. Shalley, the sole proprietor of

the firm. The cheques were also not issued from any joint account.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, while opposing

the petition has contended that the petitioner while raising invoices, has

admitted himself to be the proprietor of the firm. In his bail application, he

had taken a stand that the cheque book from which the subject cheques were

issued, belonged to him and that the same was lost. At the time of accused

evidence, the defence taken was that the cheque was issued as a security

cheque. The petitioner had furtherapproached the Allahabad High Court

seeking compounding of the offence. All these pleas