Dismissed

Amrit Jangid & Ors. v. Ashwani Arora & Anr.

Delhi HC15 Jan 2018CRL.M.C./169/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged summons issued for a single composite complaint covering five dishonoured cheques, arguing it violated Section 219 Cr.P.C. The Court held that since one notice covered all cheques causing cause of action, Section 219 did not apply. Petition dismissed with costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; costs of 25,000/- to be deposited by petitioners before trial court.

Amrit Jangid & Ors. Vs Ashwani Arora & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~23

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.M.C. 169/2018 & Crl. M.A. no. 722/2018 AMRIT JANGID & ORS ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Mohan Babu Agarwal, Mr. Chetanya Siddharth and Ms. Celeste Agarwal, Advs.

¶4

Versus

¶5

ASHWANI ARORA & ANR ..... Respondents Through None

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

¶7

O R D E R % 15.01.2018

¶8

Respondents filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“NI Act”, for short) against the petitioners before the trial court. After recording pre-summoning evidence, trial court issued summons under Section 138 of the NI Act against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the summoning, petitioners have preferred this petition. It is contended that one composite complaint was filed in respect of the five dishonoured cheques; three cheques were dishonoured vide return memo dated 15^th May, 2017 and two cheques were dishonoured on 7^th June, 2017.

¶9

There dishonoured cheques give rise to five separate offences. Not more than three cheques could have been included in one complaint, in view of the Section 219 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the complaint case in respect of five cheques was not maintainable and Magistrate ought not have summoned the petitioners in the complaint.

¶10

Arguments are fallacious and are liable to be rejected. In Ambica Plastopack P. Ltd. vs. State MANU/DE/5072/2013, similar argument was canvassed, but was rejected by a Bench of coordinate jurisdiction. It was held that cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is service of notice under Section 138 of the NI Act and not the dishonour of the cheque. It was held that complainant had issued one notice of dishonour to petitioner in respect of the four dishonoured cheques, therefore, Section 219 Cr.P.C. was not applicable. Learned Single Judge placed reliance on Trichandoor Muruhan Spinning Mill Pvt. vs. Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants, MANU/KA/0045/2001, Rajendra B. Choudhari vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/1094/2006, Dyes & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Aiyswarya Chemicals, MANU/TN/0082/1993 and Majula vs. Colgate Palmolive (India) Limited, MANU/TN/2780/2006 to take such a view.

¶11

In this case also, one single notice was issued. Petitioners did not pay

¶12

the amounts involved in the dishonoured cheques within the prescribed

¶13

period, despite service of notice, therefore, complaint has been filed.

¶14

For the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed with costs of

¶15

`25,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners before the trial court. Upon deposit of costs the same be paid to complainant. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.

¶16

A.K. PATHAK, J.

¶17

JANUARY 15, 2018 r.bararia

Amrit Jangid & Ors. v. Ashwani Arora & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrit Jangid & Ors. v. Ashwani Arora & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Birbal Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Anr.

Anita Garg Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Rajeev Sharma & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Manisha Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Arjun & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ashish Kumar & Ors. Vs State and Anr.