O R D E R

% 20.09.2024

1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the Complaint Case No.1788/2019, pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act) – 01, Rouse Avenue Courts.

2. The facts of the case reveals that the Petitioner herein issued a cheque bearing No.793653 dated 06.11.2018 amounting to Rs.32,11,324/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad, to the Respondent herein for repayment of a liability. It is stated that prior to the presentation of the cheque in question, in view of the email dated 17.11.2018 exchanged between the parties, a debit note for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was issued and Rs.30,11,324/- was paid by the Petitioner to the Respondent by way of RTGS on 17.11.2018 and the Petitioner also demanded the cheque in question from the Respondent in view of the RTGS payment. This fact has been acknowledged in the proceedings before the Trial Court. It is stated CRL.M.C. 5709/2022 Page 1 of 8 that after receiving a sum of Rs.30,11,324/-, the Respondent deposited the cheque in question in the bank on 20.11.2018 and the same was returned with endorsement “Payment stopped”. It is stated that the Respondent, thereafter, filed a complaint against the Petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, the complaint does not disclose anything about the payment of Rs.30,11,324/- by the Petitioner through RTGS.

3. Petitioner has filed the present Petition seeking quashing of the Complaint.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to e-mail dated 17.11.2018, sent by the Petitioner at 3:27 PM to the Respondent herein, which reads as under:

“Dear Sir, As discussed with you, Kindly find attached Debit note of Rs.-2, 00, 000/ Accept the same and reply Ok.

We are doing RTGS of Rs. 30, 11,3241- to your HDFC Bank A/c, So kindly return back our Cheque no.- 793653 dt. - 06.11.2018 which we stop for payment in Bank also with this RTGS.”

5. He has also taken this Court to the email sent by the Respondent herein on the very same date at 03:55 PM agreeing to the proposal of the Petitioner of issuing a debit note in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and making RTGS payment of Rs.30,11,324/- to the Respondent in lieu of total liability of Rs.32,11,324/-. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner issued a debit note on the very same date, i.e. 17.11.2018 and sent a mail to the Respondent attaching the debit note at 04:08 PM and sent Rs.30,11,324/- to the Respondent through RTGS on the very same date, i.e. 17.11.2018. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, states that in view CRL.M.C. 5709/2022 Page 2 of 8 of the fact that the Petitioner has paid Rs.30,11,324/- to the Respondent, the cheque in question ought not have been presented by the Respondent in the Bank as it was specifically mentioned by the Petitioner in its e-mail dated 17.11.2018 that the Petitioner has stopped the payment of the said cheque. He, therefore, states that in view of the above the present complaint is not maintainable.

6. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Respondent had agreed for payment of Rs.30,11,324/- and not for debit note of Rs.2,00,00/- and, therefore, the cheque in question was presented for the balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

7. Heard the Counsels and perused the material on record.

8. The admitted facts of the case are that Petitioner herein issued a cheque bearing No.793653 dated 06.11.2018 amounting to Rs.32,11,324/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chander Nagar, Ghaziabad, to the Respondent herein for repayment of a liability. Material on record also discloses that out of the said amount, Petitioner paid Rs.30,11,324/- to the respondent herein through RTGS on 17.11.2018. This fact has also been acknowledged by the AR of the Respondent before the Trial Court and the same has been recorded in the Order dated 16.08.2022. The said Order reads as under:

“AR is submitted that the complainant company is received Rs. 30 Lacks 1