IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 04.04.2025 + CRL.M.C. 6741/2019 & CRL.M.A. 43621/2019 ARVIND SINGLA .....Petitioner versus M/S BEETEL TELETECH LIMITED .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Viraj Dattar, Senior Advocate with Mr.

Deepesh Aneja, Advocate.

For the Respondent : Mr. K.P. Singh, Advocate R-1.

Mr. Anil K. Batra, Mr. K.K.Tiwari, Ms.Shashi Bhalla, Mr. Madan Pal Singh and Mr. Amish Tiwari, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the order dated 02.01.2017 (hereafter ‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereafter ‘Trial Court’), in Complaint Case bearing number 03/2017, titled as M/s Beetel Teletech Ltd. v. M/s Bell Enterprises & Ors., taking cognizance for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (hereafter “NI Act”).

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 6741/2019 Page 1 of 17 Brief Facts

2. The complaint was filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the petitioner and other co-accused persons namely- Sh. Deepak Singla and Smt. Shweta Singla/Respondent No.2 (wife of Deepak Singla), acting on behalf of the accused partnership firm namely– M/s Bell Enterprises (hereafter ‘accused firm’), entered into a Distributorship Agreement dated 20.01.2016 with the complainant company / respondent, for resale and marketing of various products/ goods as mentioned in the said agreement.

3. It is stated that at the time of the execution of the Distributorship Agreement, the accused firm issued a blank cheque drawn on Punjab National Bank and a bank guarantee of ₹3,00,00,000/- as a security towards the supply of products on a timely basis.

4. It is the case of the complainant that the goods were supplied to the accused firm as and when a purchase order was issued and invoices were raised by the complainant against such supply. The details provided by the complainant/ respondent in regard to the invoices is given below:

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 6741/2019 Page 2 of 17

5. The complainant alleged that the accused firm issued a cheque for a sum of ₹3,00,00,000/- being cheque No. 553963 dated 17.07.2016 (hereafter ‘subject cheque’) drawn on State Bank of India, in partial discharge of their liability. The said subject cheque, upon presentation, was dishonoured with remarks “funds insufficient” vide return memo dated 18.07.2016. It is stated that when the complainant informed the accused firm regarding the dishonour of the subject cheque, the accused firm requested the complainant to invoke the bank guarantee of ₹3,00,00,000/- issued at the time of execution of the Distribution Agreement, and hold the presentation of the subject cheque for another two months. It is stated that after the invocation of the bank guarantee, the outstanding liability along with interest came to be total of ₹3,02,00,330/- owed by the accused firm.

6. It is alleged that after almost three months, the complainant presented the subject cheque through its banker, State Bank of India, Jahawar Vyapar Bhawan, New Delhi, however the said cheque was again dishonoured with remarks “funds insufficient” vide return memo dated 13.10.2016. Upon the failure of the accused persons to make the payment despite the service of the statutory notice, the complainant/

Respondent No. 1 filed the subject complaint.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:HARMINDER CRL.M.C. 6741/2019 Page 3 of 17

7. The present petition is filed on the ground that the petitioner had withdrew and retired from M/s Bell Enterprises way back on 14.06.2016. The petitioner relied upon the Modified Partnership Deed dated 1