$~100 & 101 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 30^th September, 2024 + CRL.M.C. 5965/2019 & CRL.M.A. 40920/2019 DEEPINDER SINGH BEDI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Nikhil Pillai and Ms. Malvi Dedhla, Advs.

versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Premnath Upadhyay, Mr. Deeparghya Datta and Mr. Vishal Tanwar, Advs.

for R-2.

+ CRL.M.C. 5968/2019 & CRL.M.A. 40925/2019 DEEPINDER SINGH BEDI & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Nikhil Pillai and Ms. Malvi Dedhla, Advs.

versus STATE & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Mr. Akshay Chandra, Mr. Premnath Upadhyay, Mr. Deeparghya Datta and Mr. Vishal Tanwar, Advs.

for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5965/2019 & CRL.M.C. 5968/2019 Page 1 of 9 Signed By:HARMINDER AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petitions are filed challenging the order dated 05.09.2019 framing notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and summoning order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Patiala House Courts, Delhi in a complaint filed by Respondent No.2 being CC No. 29073/2016 titled Vodafone Idea Ltd. V. Tulip Telecom Limited, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(NI Act).

2. Briefly stated, the complaint in the present case was filed by Respondent No.2 against the petitioners in relation to an alleged dishonour of cheque dated 30.08.2013 on account of accused/drawer company’s account being blocked due to a freezing order/notice dated 26.08.2013 issued by statutory authority – Office of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, New Delhi (IT Department).

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned proceedings are not maintainable in view of the fact that the account of the drawer company was blocked/frozen by the order of IT Department prior to the presentation of cheques. He submits that in order to establish liability under section 138 of the NI Act, the cheque needs to be returned unpaid by the banker either because:

a. The amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque; or Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5965/2019 & CRL.M.C. 5968/2019 Page 2 of 9 Signed By:HARMINDER b. That the cheque exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement between the account holder and the bank.

4. He submits that the cheque, in the present case was dishonoured for ostensible reasons which cannot be attributable to the drawer since, the cheque returned due the account being blocked by the IT department and was beyond the control of the drawer company.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the following judgments to buttress his arguments:

a) Ceasefire Industries Ltd. v. State : 2017 SCC OnLine Del

8280 b) Onkar Nath Goenka v. Gujarat Lease Finance Ltd. :

2008 SCC OnLine Del 1593 c) Standard Chartered Bank v. State : 2007 SCC OnLine Del 1105 d) Chintan Arvind Kapadia v. State : 2013 SCC OnLine Del

582 e) Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey : (2014) 10 SCC 713 f) Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Others : (2000) 2 SCC 745 g) Nagaraja Upadhya v. M. Sanjeevan : 2007 SCC OnLine Kar 214 h) National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal : (2010) 3 SCC 330 Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 5965/2019 & CRL.M.C. 5968/2019 Page 3 of 9 Signed By:HARMINDER

6. Per Contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the present petition on the ground that the disputed facts are matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated in a petition invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his contention:

a) Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana : (2012) 11 SCC 252 b) Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram : 2022 SCC OnLin