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 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 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 Government of India to contain the spread of COVID 19 pandemic, claiming that the consignment had to come from Bombay.

8. It is alleged that Respondent No.2 approached the petitioners for the finished goods several times till 15.12.2020, but they failed to deliver the same. Hence, as per the agreed terms of the MOU, on 16.12.2020, Respondent No.2 presented the cheque bearing no.857711for a sum of ₹50,00,000/-for encashment, but the same was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 16.12.2020 with remarks “Funds Insufficient” on 17.12.2020.

9. It is further claimed that after repeated reminders and requests with respect to the dishonour of the aforementioned cheque, Respondent No.2 sent a legal notice dat