Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:SANGEETA ANAND

Signing Date:331.01.2022

18:10:20

Page 1 of 10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 2445/2021, CRL.M.A. 16082/2021 (Stay) and

CRL.M.A. 16083/2021 (exemption),

CRL.M.C. 2446/2021, CRL.M.A. 16084/2021 (Stay) and

CRL.M.A. 16085/2021 (exemption) and

CRL.M.C. 2438/2021 and CRL.M.A. 16048/2021 (Stay)

Reserved on

: 10.12.2021

Date of Decision : 31.01.2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

M/S RAYAPATI POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR

….. Petitioners

Through: Mr. Dhruv Dwivedi and Mr. Sheikh

Bakhtiyar, Advocates

Versus

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY LTD (IREDA)

..... Respondent

Through:

M/S RAYAPATI POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR

….. Petitioners

Through: Mr. Dhruv Dwivedi and Mr. Sheikh

Bakhtiyar, Advocates

Versus

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY LTD (IREDA)

..... Respondent

Through:

M/S RAYAPATI POWER GENERATION PVT. LTD. AND ANR

..... Petitioners

Through: Mr. Dhruv Dwivedi and Mr. Sheikh

Bakhtiyar, Advocates

Versus

INDIAN RENEWABLE ENERGY AGENCY LTD (IREDA)

..... Respondent

Through:

2022:DHC:358

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:SANGEETA ANAND

Signing Date:331.01.2022

18:10:20

Page 2 of 10

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

J U D G M E N T

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on

behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of Criminal Complaint Nos.

20581/2016, 15489/2016 and 941/2017 respectively, pending before the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, qua the

petitioners. While petitionerNo.1is the accused Company, petitioner No.2 is

its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory.

2. The above-noted petitions arise out of different complaints filed under

Section 138 read with Sections 141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,

1881 (hereinafter, referred to as „the N.I. Act‟) and involve the same parties.

Accordingly, the petitions are taken up for hearing together and shall be

disposed of by a common order.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned criminal

complaints are not maintainable qua the petitioners, as the relevant legal

demand notices were issued after the expiry of statutory period of 30 days set

out under the N.I. Act. It is contended that the said notices being invalid, the

necessary ingredients of Section 138(b) N.I. Act are not satisfied and thus, the

impugned criminal complaints ought to be quashed.

4. I have heard the submissions made as well as perused the material

placed on record.

5. A

reading

of

the

case

records

would

show

that

the

respondent/complainant is a Company engaged in the business of lending of

2022:DHC:358

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:SANGEETA ANAND

Signing Date:331.01.2022

18:10:20

Page 3 of 10

financial assistance for renewable energy projects. Pursuant to the petitioner

Company approaching it for a loan facility, a transaction was entered into

between the complainant Company and the petitioner Company, in due course

whereof, three cheques dated 31.03.2015, 30.09.2015 and 30.06.2016

respectively were issued by the petitioner Company in favor of the

complainant Company towards partial discharge of its liability. However, the

cheques in question got dishonored upon presentation and were returned vide

return memos dated 29.05.2015, 19.10.2015 and 21.07.2016 respectively with

the remarks „drawer sign differ‟ and „no funds‟.

The complainant Company is stated to have received return statements

from its Bank on 19.06.2015, 29.10.2015 and 27.07.2016 in respect of the

aforesaid cheques, indicating that the same had got dishonored. Consequently,

it posted legal demand notices on 07.07.2015, 28.11.2015 and 26.08.2016

respectively calling upon the petitioner Company to repay the debt owed

within 15 days of receipt of the notices. When the due amount was not repaid

withi