CRL. M.C. 2385/2022 Page 1 of 13

$~15

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CRL. M.C. 2385/2022

JEEVESH SABHARWAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

Adit

S.

Pujari

and

Ms.

Aparajita

Sinha,

Advocates

versus

ARUNA GUPTA & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Naveen Pandey, Advocate

for R-1 and 2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

O R D E R

%

30.08.2022

CRL. M.C. 2385/2022 & CRL.M.A. 10072/2022 (interim relief)

1.

Through the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing the

impugned order dated 03.03.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate („MM‟), Negotiable Instruments Act („NI Act‟) Saket

District Court (South District) in Complaint Case (CC) No.

13445/2017 (Aruna Gupta v. Concept Horizon Infra. Pvt Limited &

Ors) and all proceeding emanating therefrom.

2.

The background facts leading to the present case are that

respondent No.1 filed a complaint under Section 138 read with

Sections 141 and 142 of NI Act against the petitioner herein, i.e.,

2022:DHC:3501

CRL. M.C. 2385/2022 Page 2 of 13

Jeevesh Sabharwal, Mr. Suninder Sandha, Concept Horizon Infra

Pvt. Ltd. („CHIPL‟), one Mr. Nitant Verma (also a Director of

CHIPL) and M/s Karvy Private Wealth on 23.11.2017. It is stated in

the complaint that CHIPL had approached respondent no. 1 herein

through M/s Karvy Private Wealth for booking of a banquet

admeasuring 256sq.ft. under an assured buy-back scheme along with

profits in the project „Orrizonte‟. It is further stated that that

respondent No.1 booked the aforesaid banquet by allegedly paying a

sum of Rs. 9,71,667 along with a sum of Rs. 40,810 towards service

tax to CHIPL. For this purpose, Mr. Sandha, in his capacity as the

then director of CHIPL had signed a Memorandum of Understanding

(„MOU‟) dated 22.07.2015 with respondent No.1 along with her son

Amit Gupta/respondent No.2 herein. A per Clause 2 of the said

MOU, it was agreed that upon expiry of 24 months from the date of

execution of the said MOU, respondent no. 2 would receive a

complete refund of the aforesaid amount paid by her along with a

premium of Rs. 1,55,467. Pursuant to this, respondent No.1 alleged

that CHIPL issued 24 post-dated cheques towards the refund, which

were allegedly dishonoured when presented for realization.

Respondent No.1 thereafter issued a legal notice dated 14.10.2017

served upon the accused person by registered AD through her

counsel. Respondent no. 1 having failed to receive reply from the

accused and proceeded to file the complaint on 23.11.2017. It is

pertinent to note that there is no specific assertion as to the

knowledge of Mr. Amit Gupta/Respondent No.2 in the said

transaction.

2022:DHC:3501

CRL. M.C. 2385/2022 Page 3 of 13

3.

It is stated that when the matter was heard before the learned

MM on 14.03.2018, an affidavit by way of evidence of respondent

no. 1 along with documents were taken on record, following which

the pre-summoning evidence was closed. The learned MM held that

there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the petitioner

herein, alogn with the other accused except M/s. Karvy Private

Wealth and directed that the accused persons be summoned.

4.

It is further stated that on 11.12.2019 the petitioner filed an

application under Section 145(2) NI Act seeking an opportunity to

cross-examine respondent No.1 and submitted that there was no

legally subsisting debt as on the date of deposit of the cheques in

question since it was a buyback scheme subject to certain conditions

in the MOU which had not been met by respondent No.1, including,

inter alia, undertaking to return/hand over all receipts issued by to

her. The petitioner subsequently found out that Mr. Suninder Sandha

was perpetuating a series of frauds upon the petitioner, CHIPL as

well as their customers at the time of signing the MOU, for which he

and CHIPL took immediate criminal as well as civi