$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 27^th February, 2025 + CRL.M.C. 5118/2017 MANISH JHA S/o Shri Gunanand Jha, Resident of C-5/12, Gali no. 1, Dheeraj Nagar, Part ii, Faridabad, Haryana.

Through: Mr. Deepak Pathak, Advocate Versus

1. STATE OF GNCTD Through Standing Counsel

2. SMT. SUNITA JHA W/o Shri Virdner Kumar Jha R/o B-273, Gurdwara Road Sangam Vihar, New Delhi

3. SMT. RUPAM JHA W/o Shri Mrituyanjay Jha R/o B-345 Sangam Vihar Near block B Block Gurdwara Sangam Vihar

4. SHRI MRITYUNJAY JHA R/o B-345 Sangam Vihar Near B Block Gurdwara Sangam Vihar New Delhi .....Respondents Through: Mr.Shoaib Haider, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent-

State

1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

2. It is submitted in the Petition that the Complainant had filed the Complaint against the Petitioner alleging that a cheque bearing No. 9915505 was issued by the Petitioner on his account maintained at Canara Bank, Hauz Khan Branch, New Delhi for an amount of Rs.9,10,000/- in favour of the Complainant under a self written receipt of the Complainant dated 19.02.20213 towards the liability of the loan taken by brother and sister-in-law of the Petitioner i.e. Respondents No.3 & 4.

3. The Cheque was allegedly taken away by Respondent No.3 after about one year. The Complainant has not annexed the Cheque or the copy thereof before the Trial Court and made pre-summoning deposition of cheating. The falsity and fraudulent statement made by the Complainant stands exposed in light of the fact that the said Cheque was already withdrawn /used by the Petitioner way back in 29.02.2003 and thereafter, the said Cheque was destroyed by the Bank and certificate to this effect was issued on 02.11.2017.

4. The Petitioner has asserted that how can a Cheque be given when the same stood destroyed and without the Cheque been annexed by the

2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Complainant along with his Complaint, there is a blatant lie as the Cheque already stood destroyed and there is no question of it being in use and as such, could not have been given to the Complainant. The Complaint is based on false and baseless story. The summoning order dated 21.08.2017 of the learned M.M. has been obtained by serious fraud and misrepresentation. The summoning is therefore bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

5. It is further asserted that Complainant has abused the process of law by filing a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. read with Section 200 Cr.P.C. regarding an alleged financial transaction made between the Complainant and Respondent No.3- Ms. Rupam Jha, sister-in-law/ Bhabhi of Petitioner and Respondent No.4- Shri Mritunjay Jha, brother of the Petitioner.

6. It was alleged by the Complainant that in order to repay the loan/ civil transaction, Respondent No.3 & 4 had handed over two Cheques of Rs.40,000/-; and another Cheque bearing No.991505 in the sum of Rs.9,10,000/- under an alleged settlement entered between the Complainant and Respondent No.3.

7. The Petitioner has alleged that the complaint has given a totally false and concocted story, as the certificate dated 02.11.2017 issued by the Bank in respect of the Cheque, that it was utilized for withdrawal of cash of Rs.500/- by the Petitioner on 29.03.2003 and that the Cheque has been destroyed as per bank policy.

8. The fraudulent act of Respondent/Complainant is also evident as to how a Cheque which was encashed 15 years back and was in the custody

3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed of the bank and was destroyed as per weeding policy, could be given to the Complainant by Respondent No.3. It is a case of forgery by the Complainant and the Petitioner had nothing to do with alleged transaction bet