JUDGMENT

1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed by the Petitioner seeking quashing of the Complaint Case bearing CT Case No.2001/2020, tilted as "Jagdish Lal vs. Lhakpa Tsering" filed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner has also challenged the Order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act)-03, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi whereby summons had been issued to the Petitioner in the said Complaint.

2. It is the case of the Respondent that he had lent a sum of Rs.60,000/- in cash to the Petitioner in year 2009. It is stated that in the year 2012, a sum of Rs.4,40,000/- was further lent to the Petitioner through various cheques. It is stated that a promissory note was executed by the Petitioner in the year 2012 in respect of the sum of Rs.60,000/- borrowed by the Petitioner in cash and Rs.4,40,000/- borrowed by way of cheques, thereby totalling the amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had issued 12 cheques of Rs.24,000/- each to the Respondent, all drawn on Syndicate Bank, Connought Circus, New Delhi. It is stated that the Petitioner had already repaid a sum of Rs.90,000/- to the Respondent through a few cheques.

4. It is stated that the cheques were deposited by the Respondent on 10.12.2019. It is stated that out of 12 cheques, 3 cheques were honoured and the remaining 9 cheques were dishonoured and the details of the same read as under:

5. A legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "NI Act") was issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner demanding a sum of Rs.8,23,000/- within 15 days which is more than the cheques' amount which were dishonoured. Thereafter, the Complaint Case bearing CT Case No.2001/2020 was filed against the Petitioner on 20.02.2020 and summons was issued to the Petitioner on

01.08.2022.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contends that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act can be instituted only if the cheques are issued for a legally enforceable debt or other liability. He states that the loans were given to the Petitioner in the year 2012 and the cheques have been deposited by the Respondent in the year 2019 and, therefore, the debt cannot be said to be a legally enforceable debt.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the issue as to whether cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt or other liability should be decided only at the time of trial and not at this stage. He, therefore, states that the complaint is maintainable.

8. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Parties and perused the material on record.

9. Section 138 of the NI Act reads as under:

"138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.—Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years’], or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both:

Provided that nothing contained in this s