* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 4^th February, 2025 Pronounced on: 2nd May, 2025 + CRL.M.C. 3878/2018 UTTAM KUMAR DAGA S/o Mr. Hari Ratan Daga R/o 374, Salt Lake City, Block-CF, Kolkata-700064, West Bengal .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mrinal Beri, Advocate.

versus

1. THE STATE (NCT of DELHI) ...Respondent No.1

2. ROHIT CHAUHAN S/o Mr. P.S. Chauhan, R/o CSC-1/16, DDA Market, Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi-110085 ...Respondent No.2 Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP for State.

Mr. Abhishek Kaushik & Dr. Navin Kumar Sehrawat, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”), has been filed for quashing of the Complaint Case bearing No. 879/2017 titled “Rohit Chaudhary vs. Dadheech Infrastrucures Pvt. Ltd.” under Section 138 read with Section Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3878/2018 Page 1 of 7 Signed By:ANIL

141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “N.I.

Act”) and other proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, M/s Dadheech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., a Company having its registered office in West Bengal, is engaged in the business of construction works. The accused Nos. 2-4 being its Directors, are persons in charge and responsible for all acts of the Company. The Complainant, the proprietor of M/s Shri Ram Builders, is engaged in the business of construction and supply of Building raw materials.

3. They entered into a business arrangement whereby the Complainant started supplying the materials to accused No. 1 Company on a regular basis, as per the terms of instruction of its Directors/accused persons.

4. In September 2014, the Complainant reconciled the account with the accused persons, and as per the Ledger Account, the net due closing balance amount due from the accused Company was Rs. 22,53,968/- which was also acknowledged by Accused No.2/Sanjeev Kumar Sharma and the employees of accused No. 1 Company, namely, Jitender (Accountant) and Mr. Laxmi Aggarwal (Purchase Dept.) who signed the Ledger Account Statement.

5. Despite the Complainant’s multiple requests from October to December 2014 for payment, accused Nos.2-4 asked for extensions, claiming financial constraint to pay the outstanding amount.

6. Eventually, on 20.03.2015, accused No. 2/Sanjeev Kumar Sharma on behalf of all the accused persons executed a Note Promissory/Pronote, acknowledging the debt of Rs.22,53,968/- and undertook to clear the outstanding said amount within 20 days. The accused No. 2 also assured the Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3878/2018 Page 2 of 7 Signed By:ANIL Complainant that their vendor, HSCC (INDIA) Ltd. shall be intimated to directly pay the aforesaid outstanding amount to the Complainant.

7. Thereafter on 23.09.2015, the accused persons made a part payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the Complainant.

8. In September-October 2016, on the request of Complainant, the accused issued Two cheques towards full and final amount as mentioned below:-

9. The Complainant as requested by the accused persons, presented the aforesaid cheque for encashment on 10.11.2016 with its banker Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Branch. However, the said cheque was returned unpaid with bank’s remarks as “Funds Insufficient” vide Return Memo on

20.11.2016.

10. The accused persons when intimated about the dishonour of cheque, requested the Complainant to re-present the said cheque along with other cheque bearing No. 521020 amounting Rs. 10,00,000/- on 20.12.2016. However, both the cheques again were dishonoured for “Funds Insufficient” vide Return Memo dated 27.12.2016.

Signature Not Verified CRL.M.C. 3878/2018 Page 3 of 7 Signed By:ANIL

11. Re