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’).

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 831/2020 Page 1 of 11 Digitally Signed

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.

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 831/2020 Page 2 of 11 Digitally Signed

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, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the present petition and states that the sole ground for petitioner to have obtained ex-parte interim stay of trial court proceedings on 14.02.2020 was that as per the ledger filed with the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, the amount alleged to be due was less than the amount mentioned on the dishonored cheque, however, the petitioner had deliberately filed incomplete ledger before this Court and suppressed the complete ledger, and a perusal of the complete ledger demonstrates that the total amount due as per the ledger filed before the learned Trial Court is Rs.48.98 lakhs. It is Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 831/2020 Pa