CRL.M.C. 831/2020

Page 1 of 11

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 22.09.2023

Pronounced on: 26.09.2023

+

CRL.M.C. 831/2020 & CRL.M.A. 3401/2020 & CRL.M.A.

47/2022

GSM ENGINEERING COMPANY ..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Deepak Kohli and Ms.

Gurmeet

Kaur

Kapur,

Advocates

versus

PARAMOUNT COMMUNICATIONS LTD. ..... Respondent

Through:

Mr.

Mayank

Bughani,

Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

The instant petition is filed on behalf of petitioner under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’)

assailing summoning order dated 25.09.2019 passed by learned

Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi in Complaint

Case bearing no. 13531/2019 titled as „Paramount Communications

Ltd. vs GSM Engineering Company‟, filed under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’).

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:20.10.2023

11:38:40

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 831/2020

Page 2 of 11

2.

Brief facts of the case, as per complaint under Section 138 of

NI

Act,

are

that

complainant/respondent

i.e.

Paramount

Communications Ltd. is a company engaged in business of

manufacturing and sales of cable and the accused/petitioner i.e. GSM

Engineering Company is a proprietorship concern managed by the

sole proprietor namely Harmeet Singh Kochhar. During the course of

business, accused had approached the complainant for supply of

cables, and the complainant had time and again supplied material to

the accused against appropriate invoices. It was stated that as on

07.05.2019, a sum of Rs.23,35,736/- was due and payable by the

accused and thus, the accused/petitioner had issued a cheque bearing

no. 313217, dated 07.05.2019, amounting to Rs.23,35,736/- drawn on

Canara Bank, Delhi in favour of complainant. However, when the

complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment with its

bank, the same had got dishonored vide return memo dated

13.05.2019 for the reasons „Kindly Contact Drawer‟. Thereafter, the

accused had assured the complainant that the said cheque would be

honoured upon subsequent presentation, however, when the cheque

was again presented, it had got dishonored for the same reason i.e.

„Kindly Contact Drawer‟. The complainant had then issued a

statutory legal notice of demand dated 23.08.2019 calling upon the

accused to make payment within 15 days, but the accused had failed

to do so. Accordingly, the present complaint under Section 138 of NI

Act was filed by the complainant, and the learned Trial Court had

issued summons against petitioner/accused vide order dated

25.09.2019.

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:20.10.2023

11:38:40

Signature Not Verified

CRL.M.C. 831/2020

Page 3 of 11

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant

has filed a false and fabricated ledger by manipulating various entries

and by not giving proper credit of the payments made by the

petitioner. It is stated that on 12.05.2014, the petitioner had

transferred a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- to the complainant and the same

is reflected in the complainant‟s ledger but by fabricating the ledger,

the complainant had shown a debit entry of the same amount. It is

stated that complainant has filed the present complaint for full

amount i.e. Rs.23,35,736/- without adjusting the payments made by

the petitioner to the complainant before presentation of cheque and as

on date of presentation of cheque, the amount due even as per

complainant‟s ledger was Rs.19,43,826/-, which is much less than the

cheque amount, and thus, it cannot be said to be valid complaint. It is

argued that complainant had misused the security cheque given by

the petitioner some years back by filling the particulars in it at a later

stage. Thus, it is stated that present petition be allowed.

4.

Learned counsel for respondent,