Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 18935
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J
Guneet Bhasin – Appellant
Versus
State NCT of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.M.C. 1639/2021 | CRL.M.A. 11500/2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Deepak Bashta
For the Respondents: Sunil Kumar Gautam, Sonal Anand, Aayush Sai, Surbhi Singh
The High Court will not exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to conduct a 'mini trial' on disputed questions of fact regarding the maintainability of a Section 138 NI Act complaint, particularly when such challenges are viewed as attempts to delay trial.
Headnote:(A) Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Exercise of inherent powers - This Court shall sparingly exercise its powers under Section 482 CrPC and only when reasonable grounds are demonstrated. A petition based on hyper-technical grounds, where disputes involve questions of fact, is liable to be dismissed. (Para 14, 17)
(B) Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138 - Maintainability of Complaint - Validity of Authority Letter and status of the complainant as payee/holder in due course - Whether a composite complaint filed by one spouse on the strength of an authority letter from another spouse is maintainable is a disputed question of fact requiring trial and cannot be decided in a petition for quashing. (Para 16)
(C) Section 482 CrPC - Scope of Inquiry - Mini Trial - It is impermissible for the High Court to conduct a 'mini trial' or substitute its functions for that of the Trial Court at the summoning stage, especially when the proceedings are at a nascent stage. (Para 17)
Issues: Whether the petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the summoning order under Section 138 of the NI Act was maintainable on technical grounds regarding the authority letter and clubbing of cheques.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual matrix regarding dishonour of nine cheques and subsequent legal notice. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding maintainability of composite complaint and validity of authority letter. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's refusal to conduct mini-trial over disputed questions of fact under section 482 crpc. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. dismissal of petition with costs due to lack of merit and attempt to delay trial. (Para 20 , 21) |
J U D G M E N T
1. By way of the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [CrPC], the petitioner seeks setting aside and quashing of Complaint Case No.7398/2019 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [NIA] filed by the respondent no.2/ complainant [respondent no.2] against the petitioner/ accused no.2 therein [petitioner] and 3 other co-accused persons before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate [learned MM] and summoning order dated 04.10.2019 passed therein.
2. The facts disclose that the respondent no.2 first invested Rs.50,00,000/- in January 2009 and then again invested Rs.20,00,000/- in March 2014 with the petitioner and was assured a return of double the amount on or before March 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a Promissory Note dated 18.02.2019 in favour of the respondent no.2 and his wife Ms. Rupinder Kaur Bedi [wife] acknowledging his liability to pay Rs.2,47,53,000/- to them on or before 30.06.2019.
3. The petitioner then issued as many as 9 cheques all dated 16.07.2019, of which, admittedly, 6 cheques were in the name of the respondent no.2 whereas rest of the 3 cheques were in the name of his wife. All the said 9 cheques to the tune of Rs.73,00,000/- were dishonoured on presentation with the details given below:-
| S.No. | In favour of | Cheque No. | Amount | Reason for dishonour |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Amrit Pal Singh Bedi | 666437 | Rs. 6,00,000/- | “Account closed” |
| 2. | Amrit Pal Singh Bedi | 666436 | Rs. 6,00,000/- | “Kindly contact drawer/draw” |
| 3. | Amrit Pal Singh Bedi | 103122 | Rs. 10,00,000/- | “Kindly contact drawer/draw” |
| 4. | Amrit Pal Singh Bedi | 103121 | Rs. 10,00,000/- | “Kindly contact drawer/draw” |
| 5. | Amrit Pal Singh Bedi | 935698 | Rs. 8,00,000/- | “Kindly contact drawer/draw” |
| 6. | Amrit Pal Singh Bedi | 666435 | Rs. 6,00,000/- | “Kindly contact drawer/draw” |
| 7. | Rupinder Kaur Bedi | 666434 | Rs. 8,50,000/- | “Kindly contact drawer/draw” |
| 8. | Rupinder Kaur Bedi | 666433 | Rs. 8,50,000/- | “Kindly contact drawer/draw” |
| 9. | Rupinder Kaur Bedi | 103120 | Rs. 10,00,000/- | “Kindly contact drawer/draw” |
4. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 and his wife issued a composite Legal Notice dated 12.08.2019 qua all the 9 cheques, which was replied by the petitioner on 27.08.2019, being unsatisfied by the same, the respondent no.2 filed a Complaint Case No.7398/2019 under Section 138 NIA with respect to all the aforesaid 9 dishonoured cheques before the learned MM, accompanied with an ‘Authority Letter’ dated 17.08.2019 executed by the wife of the respondent no.2 in his favour wherein, the learned MM passed the summoning order dated 04.10.2019.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition directly before this Court.
6. According to the petitioner, the composite complaint qua all the 9 cheques by the respondent no.2 singularly, sans his wife, is per se not maintainable. It is also not maintainable on the strength of the ‘Authority Letter’ dated 17.08.2019 issued by his wife in favour of the respondent no.2. Moreover, the petitioner has also challenged the veracity of the said ‘Authority Letter’, the execution thereof and the phraseology used therein. The petitioner, in the wake of the above, contended that the impugned order passed by the learned MM issuing summons to the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Reliance was placed on O.P. Mehra vs. Raj Kumar Bhalla & Anr. 2006 SCC OnLine P&H 1074.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the aforesaid, the complaint is against the statutory principles contained und
