IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on:03.07.2023

+

CRL.M.C. 3066/2022, CRL. M.A. 12913/2022 & CRL. M.A.

14722/2022

VIHAN EXIMS COMPANY PVT. LTD. & ORS.

..... Petitioners

versus

STATE, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioners

: Mr. Anuj Jain, Advocate

For the Respondents

:Ms Priyanka Dalal, APP for the State

CORAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure,1973(‘CrPC’), interalia, praying for

quashing of impugned notice framed under Section 251 of theCrPC

vide order dated 03.03.2022 and for setting aside of summoning order

dated 26.08.2021 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act),

Digital Court-02, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi

(hereafter ‘the learned MM’)in a complaint filed by Respondent No.

2 being CC NI Act 1768/2021, titled ‘Vivek Sapra vs. Vihan

Digitally Signed

By:HARMINDER KAUR

Signing Date:03.07.2023

18:49:13

Signature Not Verified

EximsCompany Pvt. Ltd. &Ors.’, taking cognizance for the offence

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’).

2.

The brief facts of the case as alleged in the complaint are that

the petitioners herein are engaged in the business of manufacturing

ornaments out of gold and diamonds. They specialise in

manufacturing customised jewellery based upon orders from the

customers. Respondent No.2 is engaged in the business of trading

bullion in exchange for new jewellery and making customised

jewellery on order.

3.

It is alleged that the petitioners and Respondent No.2 entered

into an agreement vis-à-vis a Memorandum of Understanding

(‘MOU’) dated 16.02.2020, outlining the rights and liabilities of each

party.In terms of the MoU, Respondent No. 2 is to supply 2000 grams

of gold bullion (of 995 purity) in weight to be converted by the

petitioners into gold/diamond jewellery/ornaments of 18k within a

stipulated time period and acharge of ₹10/- per gram of gold was

agreed to be paid by Respondent No. 2 to the petitioners.

4.

The said MOU was signed by Petitioner No.3 (Accused no.3 in

the complaint), being one of the Directors (authorised signatory) of

Petitioner No.1 company. In terms thereof, Respondent No.2 supplied

the petitioners with gold bullion equivalent to 2000 grams (of 995

purity) in weight. The parties agreed on the job work charges at ₹10

per gram of gold against whichRespondent No.2 gave an advance of

₹3 lakhs vide a cheque bearing no. 635843 drawn on Yes Bank, to the

petitioners. The cheque was cleared on 18.02.2020, and the amount

Digitally Signed

By:HARMINDER KAUR

Signing Date:03.07.2023

18:49:13

Signature Not Verified

was credited into the account of M/s Vihaan Exims Company Pvt. Ltd.

(Petitioner No.1 company).

5.

According to clause 7 of the said MOU, the parties agreed to a

fixed period depending on the article under production, within which

the finished jewellery was to be delivered. The first order was placed

with the petitioners on the same day, and it was decided that the

finished articles would be delivered within 25 days of finalisation of

the quality of the diamonds, which were to be approved by

Respondent No.2 on the petitioners showing them the same.

6.

It is further claimed that Petitioner No.1 issued two security

cheques bearing no. 857711 and 857712 for a sum of ₹50,00,000/-

each, respectively, drawn on Yes Bank, Pitampura Branch, New

Delhi, duly signed by Petitioner No.3 to the respondent to cover the

total value of the gold delivered to the petitioners.

7.

It is claimed that the petitioners, in the month of July 2020,

issued another security cheque bearing no.857719 for a sum of ₹20

lakhs towards the inflated price of the goldsince they were unable to

discharge their liability in time and sought an extension taking refuge

under the excuse of lockdown imposed by the Govern