CRL.M.C. 6722/2022

Page 1 of 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Judgment delivered on : 03.07.2023

+

CRL.M.C. 6722/2022 & CRL. M.A. 26135/2022

VERSHA NEGI

..... Petitioner

versus

STATE OF NCT DELHI THROUGH SHO PS

SHAKARPUR DELHI & ANR. & ORS.

..... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Anil Tejan & Ms. Lalita, Advs.

For the Respondents

: Ms. Richa Dhawan, APP

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) inter alia, praying for quashing

of the Criminal Complaint bearing number 1169/2018, under Section

138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI

Act’), titled ‘Corporation Bank v/s Mrs. Versha Negi’ and for

quashing of proceedings emanating therefrom.

2.

The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present

petition are as follows: -

Digitally Signed

By:HARMINDER KAUR

Signing Date:03.07.2023

18:49:13

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 6722/2022

Page 2 of 11

2.1

Complainant / Respondent No.2 herein, Corporation Bank is a

bank as defined under the Banking Regulation Act 1949, a body

corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and

Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, engaged in the business of finance

among other portfolios subject to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of

India.

2.2

It is alleged that following the representation made by the

accused / petitioner herein for availing home loan facility, the

complainant/ Respondent No.2, believing the same to be true,

sanctioned and disbursed an amount of ₹25,63,825/- on 08.12.2015,

through the home loan account no.150140. The petitioner thereafter

issued some undated blank cheques duly signed in favour of

Respondent No.2 authorizing it to deposit the same when the necessity

arises in lieu of the liability to repay the home loan.

2.3

It is further alleged that when the petitioner defaulted in making

regular monthly installments/ EMIs in terms of the subject agreement,

Respondent No.2 presented the cheque bearing No.000025, dated

18.01.2018 for a sum of ₹2,57,966/-, drawn on HDFC Bank to recover

the outstanding dues but the same was returned unpaid for the reason

“Funds Insufficient” vide a return memo dated 19.01.2018.

2.4

Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice

dated 03.02.2018, calling upon the petitioner to pay the legally

enforceable debt. Despite receiving the said notice, the petitioner did

not make the requisite payment within the stipulated period of 15 days.

Consequently, Respondent No.2, instituted a complaint under Section

138, read with Section 142 of the NI Act being C.C. No. 11169/2018.

Digitally Signed

By:HARMINDER KAUR

Signing Date:03.07.2023

18:49:13

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 6722/2022

Page 3 of 11

After considering the material on record and pre-summoning evidence,

the learned Trial Court thought it fit to summon the petitioner by order

dated 16.03.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.

2.5

Aggrieved with the abovementioned order dated 16.03.2018,

passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘hereafter MM’), the

petitioner preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the CrPC

SUBMISSIONS

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the

Petitioner came to know about the construction of a building with a

vacant flat for sale in Gurgaon, she contacted Maltha Realtors.

However, she could not buy the said apartment because she lacked the

necessary funds to which the director of Maltha Realtors responded that

he has personal contact with the corporation bank, and the home loan

would likely be approved shortly after the bank received supporting

documentation from the petitioner.

4.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had regularly paid

the bank installments and since Maltha Realtors did not de