Delhi High Court - Orders
R.K. Jain vs Vinay Kumar Tyagi And Anr on 18 November, 2021
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~36
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2845/2021 & CRL.M.A. 17921-17922/2021
R.K. JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Jain, Adv.
versus
VINAY KUMAR TYAGI AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 18.11.2021 (through physical hearing) CRL.M.A. 17922/2021 (Exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 2845/2021 & CRL.M.A. 17921/2021 Submissions have been made on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has placed reliance on proceedings dated 23.05.2012 in Company Petition No.262/2012 with inter alia reliance placed on the verdict of this Court in RK Jain Vs. Smt. Manju Bajad and Anr. in Crl.M.C.2427/2021 and in M. L. Gupta & Anr. Vs. Ceat Financial Services Ltd. 136 (2007) DLT (Crl.) 174 and the verdict of this Court in M/s Vijay Steel Tubes & Fittings Pvt. Ltd. V. Apollo Pipe Limited in W.P.(Crl.) 1821/2014 decided on 05.08.2015 submitting to the effect that the cause of action for institution of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arises only after notice of dishonour of the cheque was given and the payment not being made within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.11.2021 18:30:58 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned cheques in the instant case were returned on 10.05.2012 with the notice of dishonour was sent on 17.05.2012 and through speed post on 18.05.2012 and that the company P.R.J. Enterprises Ltd. had gone into liquidation on 23.05.2012 and that the petitioner did not even have a period of 15 days for the response to the notice issued after the alleged dishonour of the cheque on 10.05.2012.
Inter alia it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that vide the impugned order it has been observed to the effect that the proceedings against the accused cannot be dropped at the stage of framing of notice in the summons case, in view of the verdict in R.K.Aggarwal Vs. Brig. Madan Lal Nasa and Anr. in Crl.M.C. No. 1507/2015 as well as in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Arvind Kejriwal Vs Amit Sibal and Anr. 2014 1 High Court Cases (Del.) whilst setting aside the verdict of this Court has observed to the effect that the magistrate has no power to discharge an accused in a summon case based on a complaint.
Notice of the petition and the accompanying application CRL.M.A. 17921/2021 is thus directed to be issued to the respondent on taking of steps by the petitioner, returnable for 29.11.2021, on which date, the proceedings in relation to Crl.M.C.2278/2021 and Crl.M.C.2427/2021 are already fixed, till which date the proceedings before the learned Trial court are stayed.
ANU MALHOTRA, J NOVEMBER 18, 2021 vm Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:18.11.2021 18:30:58 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.