Full Text
Translation output
$-1/12 HIGH COURT OF DELHI CRL.M.C. 2A12I20\1 and Crl.
M.A. no. 9763/2017
Petitioner RITA JAIN Adv.
M.A. no. 9763/2017
Petitioner RITA JAIN Adv.
VERSUS
RKSTOCKHOLDING PVT LTD. ui
Through Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Adv. AND
Through Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Adv. AND
CRL.M.C. 2407/2017 and Crl.
M.A. no. 9726/2017
Petitioner JYOTI JAIN Adv.
M.A. no. 9726/2017
Petitioner JYOTI JAIN Adv.
VERSUS
RKSTOCKHOLDINGPVT LTD. hi
Through Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Adv. HO^^EMR.JUSTICEA.K.PATHAK
ORDER o/„ 05.09.2018
' By way of present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners have prayedfor quashing ofcomplaintcase no. 533245 of2016titledR.K.
Stockholding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jyoti Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd. &Others.
2018:DHC:8403 X.
Petitioners have been impleaded as accused nos. 2 and 3, being theDirectors ofM/s. Jyoti Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Issuance ofthe cheques has not been disputed. However, it is alleged that the cheques were issued on 17^''
November, 2011 as security cheques andnot to clear anylegal liability. It is contended that respondent tempered the date from 17^*^ November, 2011 to
17"" November, 2014. M/s. Jyoti Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd., vide letter dated 2V^ November, 2011 written to the State Bank of India, New Friends
Colony, New Delhi, had stopped the payments ofthe said cheques. FIR has been lodged in the Police Station regarding tampering of dates on the cheques. Thus, complaint case is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed.
Respondent has specifically alleged in the complaint that inthe month of September, 2011 accused persons had approached the respondent and expressed their desire to avail the services of complainant's company for purchase/sale/trading ofsecurities/derivatives on the floor ofNational Stock
Exchange/Bombay Stock Exchange. They requested for temporary funding for the trading also. Accused persons executed Member & Constituent
Agreement and other necessary agreements/documents and started availing services of respondent after opening Demat/Trading account in the name of
M/s. Jyoti Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Accused persons were irregular in payment of their liabilities towards the complainant company since the beginning and their outstanding balance in complainant's books kept on increasing day-by-day. By the end of August, 2012, outstanding amount accumulated to ^50,00,000/-. In the month of May, 2014, accused persons approached the respondent and showed their willingness to settle the matter amicably. Accordingly, two cheques bearing nos. 206811 and 206820 both dated 17^*^ November, 2014 for ?10,00,000/- each drawn on State Bank of
India, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, were issued to clear part liabilities.
However, on presentation, the said cheques were returned dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer", vide bank return memos dated lO"' February, 2015. Despite legal notice, the amount was not paid. Hence, the complaint.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that allegations and counter allegations are subject matter of trial. The plea taken by the petitioners is at best their defence, which they have to prove during the trial.
I am of the view that pleas taken by the petitioners that the cheques were manipulated and/or same were issued as security in the year 2011 are subject matter of trial. Disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by the High
V jr f® Court in exercise ofinherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Respondent specifically alleged in the complaint that cheques were issued on 17 November, 2014 to clear outstanding liabilities. This fact has been disputed.
As per the petitioners, cheques have been manipulated. Veracity of allegations and counter-allegations can be tested only during the trial. At this stage, averments made in the complainant have to be taken on its face value and cannot be discarded without atrial. In my view, complaint cannot be quashed at this stage by this Court in exercise ofthe inherentjurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Petitions are dismissed with costs ofn5,000/- each to be deposited in
Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund within two weeks. No other petition of the petitioners be entertained by the Registry unless receipts evidencing the deposit ofcosts are produced.
Miscellaneous applications are disposed ofas infructuous.
[AK, J.
SEPTEMBER 05,2018 r. hararia
Through Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, Adv. HO^^EMR.JUSTICEA.K.PATHAK
ORDER o/„ 05.09.2018
' By way of present petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners have prayedfor quashing ofcomplaintcase no. 533245 of2016titledR.K.
Stockholding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Jyoti Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd. &Others.
2018:DHC:8403 X.
Petitioners have been impleaded as accused nos. 2 and 3, being theDirectors ofM/s. Jyoti Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Issuance ofthe cheques has not been disputed. However, it is alleged that the cheques were issued on 17^''
November, 2011 as security cheques andnot to clear anylegal liability. It is contended that respondent tempered the date from 17^*^ November, 2011 to
17"" November, 2014. M/s. Jyoti Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd., vide letter dated 2V^ November, 2011 written to the State Bank of India, New Friends
Colony, New Delhi, had stopped the payments ofthe said cheques. FIR has been lodged in the Police Station regarding tampering of dates on the cheques. Thus, complaint case is not maintainable and is liable to be quashed.
Respondent has specifically alleged in the complaint that inthe month of September, 2011 accused persons had approached the respondent and expressed their desire to avail the services of complainant's company for purchase/sale/trading ofsecurities/derivatives on the floor ofNational Stock
Exchange/Bombay Stock Exchange. They requested for temporary funding for the trading also. Accused persons executed Member & Constituent
Agreement and other necessary agreements/documents and started availing services of respondent after opening Demat/Trading account in the name of
M/s. Jyoti Financial Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Accused persons were irregular in payment of their liabilities towards the complainant company since the beginning and their outstanding balance in complainant's books kept on increasing day-by-day. By the end of August, 2012, outstanding amount accumulated to ^50,00,000/-. In the month of May, 2014, accused persons approached the respondent and showed their willingness to settle the matter amicably. Accordingly, two cheques bearing nos. 206811 and 206820 both dated 17^*^ November, 2014 for ?10,00,000/- each drawn on State Bank of
India, New Friends Colony, New Delhi, were issued to clear part liabilities.
However, on presentation, the said cheques were returned dishonoured with the remarks "payment stopped by drawer", vide bank return memos dated lO"' February, 2015. Despite legal notice, the amount was not paid. Hence, the complaint.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that allegations and counter allegations are subject matter of trial. The plea taken by the petitioners is at best their defence, which they have to prove during the trial.
I am of the view that pleas taken by the petitioners that the cheques were manipulated and/or same were issued as security in the year 2011 are subject matter of trial. Disputed questions of facts cannot be decided by the High
V jr f® Court in exercise ofinherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Respondent specifically alleged in the complaint that cheques were issued on 17 November, 2014 to clear outstanding liabilities. This fact has been disputed.
As per the petitioners, cheques have been manipulated. Veracity of allegations and counter-allegations can be tested only during the trial. At this stage, averments made in the complainant have to be taken on its face value and cannot be discarded without atrial. In my view, complaint cannot be quashed at this stage by this Court in exercise ofthe inherentjurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Petitions are dismissed with costs ofn5,000/- each to be deposited in
Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund within two weeks. No other petition of the petitioners be entertained by the Registry unless receipts evidencing the deposit ofcosts are produced.
Miscellaneous applications are disposed ofas infructuous.
[AK, J.
SEPTEMBER 05,2018 r. hararia
JUDGMENT