Delhi High Court - Orders
Girish Bhatia vs Ms. Prama Bhandari & Anr on 8 April, 2021
Author: Rajnish Bhatnagar
Bench: Rajnish Bhatnagar
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 1100/2021 & Crl.M.A. No. 5636/2021(stay)
GIRISH BHATIA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj D. Taneja, Advocate
with Mr. Kamal Bahl, Advocate.
versus
MS. PRAMA BHANDARI & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Madhav Khurana & Mr.
Kartikeye Dang, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
ORDER
% 08.04.2021 Crl.M.A. No. 5637/2021(Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is, accordingly, disposed of. CRL.M.C. 1100/2021 & Crl.M.A. No. 5636/2021(stay)
1. Issue notice. Ld. counsel for the respondents who appears on advance notice, accepts notice.
2. The petitioner by virtue of this petition is seeking the quashing and setting aside of summoning order dated 17.09.2019 in complaint Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:29.04.2021 16:42 case No. 39267/2019 titled as "Ms. Prama Bhandari & Anr. Vs. M/s Hana Motors Plaza Pvt & Anr.'' filed by the respondents.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 17.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is a non speaking order and the Ld. Trial Court has failed to follow the directions issued by this Court in case titled as "Sudeep Jain Vs. M/s ECE Industries Ltd." Crl. M.C. 1821/2013, wherein the magistrates have been directed to seek the copies of form 32 from the complainant to primafacie satisfy as to who were the directors of the accused company at the time of the alleged offence. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that there were two different payees with two different cheques which is not permissible in law.
4. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was not maintainable as the dishonour of the cheque has taken place for the reasons "Debit Not allowed".
5. On the other hand, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents who has appeared on advance notice that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.09.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner has preferred a revision petition against the impugned order dated 17.09.2019 which was dismissed by the Ld. Court of Sessions vide order dated 23.02.2021 as the same was filed by the petitioner after a delay of 368 days, which was not condoned. It is further submitted that the petitioner as a director of the company M/s Hana Motors Plaza Pvt. Ltd. handed over 12 cheques each to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:29.04.2021 16:42 respondents and out of these cheques 4 cheques have been dis- honoured for the reasons "Debit Not allowed". It is further submitted that the petitioner was actively involved in the affairs of the company being its director. It is further submitted that there is no impediment for the respondents filing a joint complaint in respect of the dis- honoured cheques.
6. In the instant case, the counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that two different payees having two different bank accounts cannot file a single complaint. The further point raised is that the petitioner is not liable as he has resigned prior to dis-honour of cheques and their account on which the cheques were drawn have been closed for the reasons "Debit Not allowed".
7. Let the reply be filed by the respondents within 4 weeks with advance copy to the counsel for the petitioner.
8. List on 28.07.2021.
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J APRIL 08, 2021 Sumant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:KAMAL KANT MENDIRATTA Signing Date:29.04.2021 16:42