Dismissed

Anthony Pinto & Anr. v. State of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jul 2024CRL.M.C./1547/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act seeking quashing of criminal proceedings and setting aside a review order. The court held that the petitioners failed to place incontrovertible material to establish they were not partners or authorized signatories at the relevant time.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing and setting aside review order dismissed with pending application disposed of.

Anthony Pinto & Anr. Vs State of Delhi & Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~49

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1547/2023, CRL.M.A. 5876/2023

¶4

ANTHONY PINTO & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Daood Ahmad, Advocate. versus STATE OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State. Mr. Nawal Kishore Jha, APP for State Mr. Abhinanya Mahajan, Ms. Anubha Geol, and Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocates for R- 2.

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R

¶6

% 12.07.2024

¶7

By way of the present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of Complaint Case No.951/2018 tilted Triniti Eyewear Impex v. Krama Lifestyle & Ors. which is pending before the Trial Court along with the summoning order. Petitioners further seek setting aside of the order dated 06.07.2022 passed in Crl.Rev.P. 559/2022.

¶8

Briefly, the complaint case pertains to the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the respondent No.2 in the context of cheque bearing No. 136974 for Rs.13 lacs drawn on Axis Bank Ltd., Shanti Park, Mira Road, Mumbai. The complaint is accompanied by the demand notice dated 17.12.2017 in which it was alleged that the present petitioners are partners/authorised signatories of the M/s Krama Lifestyle, a partnership firm. The legal notice remained unanswered. The petitioners, after being summoned, sent a reply to the legal notice thereby stating for the first time

¶9

This is a digitally signed order.

¶10

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 11:48:16

¶11

that they have no concern with M/s Krama Lifestyle or the impugned cheque.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that they were neither the partners nor the authorised signatories at the relevant time. In this regard, reference is made to the communication dated 29.08.2019 made by the Axis Bank. The impugned cheque when presented for encashment, came to be dishonoured vide a return memo dated 23.11.2017 with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant stated that the complainant has alleged that the cheque has been signed by the present petitioners, who are partners or authorised signatories of M/s Krama Lifestyle.

¶14

The contentions raised by the parties involve disputed questions of facts, which would need to be established during the trial by adducing evidence by the respective parties. In support of their contention that they were not the partners at the relevant time, the petitioners have not placed any material on record which is of sterling quality or incontrovertible nature that would warrant interreference with the proceedings before the trial court. The reliance on the letter issued by the Bank is misplaced as the said letter came to be issued two years after the dishonour of the subject cheque and it further does not mention that the petitioners were not the authorised signatories in the year 2017. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in the present petition; consequently, the same is dismissed alongwith pending application.

¶15

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J

¶16

JULY 12, 2024/ ga

¶17

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/07/2024 at 11:48:16

Anthony Pinto & Anr. v. State of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthony Pinto & Anr. v. State of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Kamat Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

M/S Pal News Media Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Planetease Media Services Ltd.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Kamlesh Rana Vs Ravinder Kaul & Anr.

Sunil Dara @ Bittoo Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Others

Rekha Vs State of Govt of NCT of Delhi