Delhi High Court - Orders
Maharashtra Bio Fertilizers (India) ... vs Crystal Crop Protection Limited on 14 July, 2022
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 3136/2022
MAHARASHTRA BIO FERTILIZERS (INDIA) PRIVATE
LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MR. KUSHAL
NILESH THAKKER AND ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr Abhay Anil Anturkar, Ms Bhavya
Pande and Mr Dhruv Tank, Advs.
versus
CRYSTAL CROP PROTECTION LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
ORDER
% 14.07.2022 This is a petition seeking quashing and setting aside of summoning order dated 27.04.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 5891/2020.
It is submitted by Mr Anturkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 138 complaint is based on bouncing of cheque No. 002815 dated 31.03.2020 for a sum of Rs. 2 crores which had been issued by the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioner has entered into an MoU dated 11.01.2021 wherein the petitioners have admitted their outstanding liability and offered to make payments in a time bound manner. It is further submitted that the MoU covers the cheque in question as well. Mr Anturkar further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gimpex Private Limited vs. Manoj Goel 2021, SCC OnLine SC 925 and more particularly para 38 which reads as under:
"38. When a complainant party enters into a compromise agreement with the accused, it may be for a multitude of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.07.2022 11:39:24 reasons - higher compensation, faster recovery of money, uncertainty of trial and strength of the complaint, among others. A complainant enters into a settlement with open eyes and undertakes the risk of the accused failing to honour the cheques issued pursuant to the settlement, based on certain benefits that the settlement agreement postulates. Once parties have voluntarily entered into such an agreement and agree to abide by the consequences of non-compliance of the settlement agreement, they cannot be allowed to reverse the effects of the agreement by pursuing both the original complaint and the subsequent complaint arising from such non-compliance. The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint. Non- compliance of the terms of the settlement agreement or dishonour of cheques issued subsequent to it, would then give rise to a fresh cause of action attracting liability under Section 138 of the NI Act and other remedies under civil law and criminal law."
Mr Anturkar states that once the MoU has been entered into by the parties, the cheque, on the basis of which the complaint has been filed, will not be maintainable.
Issue notice to the respondent through all modes including electronically, returnable on 13.09.2022.
There is no separate application for an interim stay, however, in the main petition there is a prayer for ad-interim relief.
For the reasons stated above, further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 5891/2020 pending before learned CMM, North West, Rohini Courts, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.07.2022 11:39:24 Delhi are stayed till the next date of hearing.
List on 13.09.2022.
JASMEET SINGH, J JULY 14, 2022 sr Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed ByAMIT ARORA Signing Date:18.07.2022 11:39:24