* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: 12^th February, 2025 Pronounced on: 13th May, 2025 + CRL.M.C. 2030/2018, CRL.M.A. 7181/2018

1. M/s. SURYA PLOYMERS Through its Partner, Mr. Ravi Kumar, R/o 22/14, 11^th Cross Street, Indranagar, Adayar, Chemiai – 600020 .....Petitioner No. 1

2. Mr. RAVI KUMAR S/o S. Jayaraman, R/o 22/14,11^th Cross Street, Indranagar, Adayar, Chennai – 600020 .....Petitioner No. 2

3. ARUNA CHITRA W/o Mr. Ravi Kumar, R/o 22/14,11^th Cross Street, Indranagar, Adayar, Chennai – 600020 .....Petitioner No. 3 Through: Mr. Ankit Sharma and Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Advocates.

versus M/S. NATURES ESSENCE PVT LTD 80/8, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi -110017 Through its Authorized Representative Shri Dev Bhola .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hitesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 2030/2018 Page 1 of 15

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of the Criminal Complaint bearing No. 471340/2016 under Section 138 read with Section 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter “NI Act”) and all proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Briefly stated, the complainant M/s Nature's Essence Pvt. Ltd. engaged in the business of manufacturing of Herbal and Cosmetic Products, appointed Petitioner No. 1 M/s Surya Ploymers/Partnership Firm and its Sister Concern M/s Magikle Pharma Pvt. Ltd. as its Super Stockist, from August-September 2009 onwards.

3. The Complainant asserted that Petitioner No. 2/Accused/Ravi Kumar in discharge of his admitted liabilities as well as penalties against the non- submission of C-Form, issued an Account Payee post dated Cheque 579701 dated 27.02.2016 in the sum of Rs.26,82,324/- drawn on Corporation Bank, Indira Nagar, Chennai-600020, which on presentation was dishonoured with the remarks „Funds Insufficient’ vide Return Memo dated 09.03.2016.

4. The Legal Notice dated 16.03.2016 was served upon the Petitioners/Accused making a request to make the payment of the cheque amount within 15 days, which they failed to do. Instead, they gave a false and frivolous Reply dated 30.03.2016 denying their liability. Consequently, Complaint under 138 NI Act was filed against the Petitioners.

Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIKAS CRL.M.C. 2030/2018 Page 2 of 15

5. The Petitioners were summoned by the learned MM vide Order dated 07.11.2016. Aggrieved by the said Summoning Order, the Petitioners (Accused) have filed the present petition.

6. It is submitted that the summons issued petitioner No3 and the cognizance taken, ought to be quashed.

7. The maintainability of the Complaint itself is challenged on the ground, firstly that no proper Legal Notice of Demand has been served on the Petitioners. To make a person liable under S.138 NI Act, it is mandatory that the payee or for holder in due course of the cheque, makes a demand for the payment of the due amount of money by giving the Notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 15 days of receiving the information from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.

8. It is asserted that the learned M.M. has failed to consider that in the present case, no demand Notice as mentioned under 138(b) NI Act, has been issued to Petitioner No. 1 i.e. the drawer of the cheque.

9. It is further submitted that in the Order dated 21.04.2016, it was specifically noted by the learned MM that no Demand Notice has been issued to Accused No. 1/Petitioner No.1, the Partnership Firm, despite which this aspect has not been considered while issuing summons vide Order dated 07.11.2016. Without sending a Legal Notice to the Firm, no opportunity has been afforded to it to respond or to make payment within 15 days. The Complaint under 138 NI Act is therefore, void ab initio.

10. Reliance has been placed on Kirshna Texport and Capital Market Ltd. v. Ila A. Agrawal & Ors., (20