Dr. Harshvir Pratap Sharma, Sr. Adv., with Mr. Akshu Jain, Mr. Akul Krishnan, Mr v. SH SUMIT BANSAL

Judgment

1. The present petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) are being disposed of by a common judgement. The details of the petitions are follows: i) CRL.M.C. 7912/2023 is filed challenging and seeking to quash the Complaint Case no. 2823/2019 under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the summoning and cognizance order dated 20.06.2019 emanating therefrom, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (NW), Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter ‘petition no. 1’); and ii) CRL. M.C. 8002/2023 is filed challenging and seeking to quash the Complaint Case no. 3298/2019 under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Act and the summoning and cognizance order dated 06.03.2019 emanating therefrom, pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (NW), Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘petition no. 2’).

For the sake of brevity and convenience, petitioner- Mr. Manoj Goyal in CRL.M.C. 7912/2023 and CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 will be referred to as ‘petitioner no. 1.’ Petitioner- Ms. Kavita Rani Goyal in CRL. M.C. 7912/2023 and will be referred to as ‘petitioner no. 2’, and the petitioner- M/s MGI Developers and Promoters in CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 will be referred to as the ‘petitioner firm.’ Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected AVERMENTS IN THE COMPLAINT CASES

3. In petition no. 1, i.e., CRL.M.C. 7912/2023, the respondent herein filed a complaint dated 25.01.2019 against petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Act. Averments made in the complaint for the sake of completeness read as under: “*** *** *** 2. That accused person approached the complainant and introduced themself as the owner/proprietor of M/s MGI Developers & Promoters and further appraised him about their project “MGI MANSION” at Khasra no.966 & 967 Village- Noor Nagar, Tehsil and District Gaziabad U.P and expressed about need of money for their project and convinced the complainant to invest some money in their project by ensuring him good returns. They further Convinced to the Complainant that they have performed very well in their previous projects. They further offered personal guarantee for the money invested by the complainant and ensured guaranteed returns. 3. That believing on the assurances of the accused persons for repayment and considering their past performances as told by them, the complainant arranged and gave Rs. 1,72,21,200/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lacs, Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) in total i.e. his entire hard earned money, to the accused persons for investment in commercial units in the project. 4. That accused no.1 on behalf of their firm executed an Agreement to sell and other documents including receipt of money and personal guarantee on 07/11/2018 with complainant, regarding investment in commercial units situated in MGI Mansion, Khasra No. 966 & 967, Village Noor Nagar, Tehsil & District-Gaziabad, U.P. It was further agreed between the parties that if the accused persons would fail in executing Sale Deed of the abovesaid commercial units till 30/09/2018, then they would return the invested amount of the complainant in addition to appreciation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Only) 5. That the accused persons in order to win the confidence of the complainant, gave him personal guarantee that in case their firm would fail in executing the Sale Deed of the abovesaid commercial units till 30/09/2018 and also fails in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected returning his money alongwith appreciation amount then they will issue him the cheques for the amount invested and appreciation amount from their personal bank account. 6. That when the accused persons could not execute the Sale Deed till 30/09/2018, in the terms of the Agreement to Sell, they in order to discharge their abovesaid liability towards complainant, issued two cheques from the bank account of their firm i.e. cheque bearing no.057140, dated 30-09-2018 for Rs.1,72,21,200/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lacs Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) and a cheque no.057141, dated 30/09/2018 for Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Only) but they told the complainant that there are some financial constraints in his firm till first week of December, 2018 but they are issuing two cheques more cheques from their personal bank account towards the personal gurantee i.e. cheque bearing no.114256, dated 30-09-2018 for Rs.1,72,21,200/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lacs Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) and a cheque no.114257, dated 30/09/2018 for Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Only) both drawn on Central Bank of India, Sehani Branch, Meerut Road, Gaziabad, U.P., in case the complainant wishes to withdraw his money prior to 15/12/2018 then he can use their personal cheques else after 15/12/2018 money would be realised from the cheques of the firm. 7. That in the terms of the Agreement to sell and discussion dated 30/09/2018, after consultation with accused no.1, the complainant presented aforesaid cheques on 05/12/2018 i.e. cheque bearing no.114256, dated 30-09-2018 for Rs.1,72,21,200/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lacs Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) and a cheque no.114257, dated 30/09/2018 for Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Only) both drawn on Central Bank of India, Sehani Branch, Meerut Road, Gaziabad, U.P., through his banker i.e., ESAF Bank Ltd Sec.7, Rohini, Delhi to banker of accused for realisation, but to the utter surprise of complainant aforesaid cheques were dishonoured by the banker of accused for the reason "Exceeds Arrangement". The banker of accused accordingly sent their cheque returning memos alongwith aforesaid dishonoured cheques to the banker of complainant. The said cheques and returning memos were sent to complainant by the banker of accused on 06-12- 2018.The accused was not maintaining sufficient balance in his said account on the date of presentation of the said cheque. On receiving back the said dishonoured cheques, the complainant intimated the fate of the cheques to the accused persons. At this the accused persons felt sorry and advised the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected complainant to present the cheques of their firm and ensured him for honouring of those cheques. 8. That as per the advise of the accused persons and after consultation with them on 15/12/2018, the complainant presented the cheques of their firm, M/s MGI Promoters & Developers through his bank but those were also dishonoured on account of “Exceeds Arrangement.” 9. That the said cheques have been issued by accused with ulterior motive and malafide intentions and at the time of issuing of said cheques, the accused was fully aware of the fact that the same would be dishonoured on account of "Exceeds Arrangement", as he was not maintaining sufficient balance in his account to honour the cheques on the Hay of its presentation and as such the accused persons are guilty of committing of an offence punishable under section 138, 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act as amended up-to-date. 10. That immediately on receiving back the said dishonoured cheques, the complainant served the requisite notice dated 20-12-2018 sent on 21-12-2018 to the accused persons through Speed Post informing them that their cheques as mentioned above has been received back dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement". Further the accused persons was called upon to remit the payment of amount of the said cheques within 15 days from the receipt of this notice. The notice has been duly served upon the accused persons. The accused persons did not make the payment of the aforesaid cheques amount as demanded in the said notice. 11. That the accused persons despite of the service of the said notice has failed to remit the payment due under the said cheques and/or this outstanding amount and as such have committed offence under section 138, 141 and 142 of the Banking Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instrument Act, as amended up to date apart from other offences under other provisions of law. 12. That the cause of action arose at Delhi, where the cheques in question was received, the bank of the complainant falls within jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the amount was also payable at Delhi and the offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and hence this Hon'ble Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. 13. That the cause of action for filing the complaint arose after the expiry of the period of 15 days from the service of the legal notice as the accused have failed to remit the payment demanded in the legal notice against the dishonoured cheques.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected

4. In petition no. 2, i.e., CRL. M.C. 8002/2023, the respondent herein filed a complaint dated 30.01.2019 against the petitioner firm and petitioner no. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 138, 141 and 142 of the Act. Averments made in the complaint for the sake of completeness read as under: “*** *** *** 2. That accused no. 2 approached the complainant and introduced himself as the owner/proprietor of M/s MGI Developers & Promoters (i.e. Accused No.1) and further apprised him about their Project "MGI MANSION" at Khasra no.966 & 967 Village-Noor Nagar, Tehsil & District Gaziabad, U.P. and further expressed that they are in need of money for the project and convinced, the complainant to invest some money in their Project and ensured him good returns on it. He further told to the complainant that they have performed very well in their previous projects. He offered personal guarantee for money invested by himself and by her wife Smt. Kavita Rani Goyal ensured guaranteed returns.

3. That believing on the assurances of the accused persons for repayment and considering their past performance as told by them, complainant arranged and gave Rs1,72,21,200/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lacs, Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) in total i.e. his entire hard earned money, to the accused persons in commercial units of the accused persons.

4. That accused no.2 executed an Agreement to sell and other documents including receipt of money on 07/11/2018 with complainant with regard to the purchase of commercial units situated in 'MGI Mansion, Khasra No.966 & 967, Village Noor Nagar, Tehsil & District- Gaziabad, U.P. and other relevant document including Personal Guarantee of the accused no.2 and his wife Smt. Kavita Rani Goyal. It was further agreed between the parties that if the accused persons would fail in executing Sale Deed of the abovesaid commercial units till 30/09/2018, then accused person would return the invested amount of the complainant in addition to appreciation amount of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Only).

5. That the accused no.2 and his wife Smt. Kavita Rani Goyal in order to win the confidence of the complainant, gave the complainant guarantee that in case their firm i.e. accused no.1 would fail in executing the Sale Deed of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected abovesaid commercial units till 30/09/2018 and further fails in returning his money alongwith appreciation amount then would issue cheques for the amount invested and appreciation amount from their personal bank account.

6. That when the accused persons could not execute the Sale Deed till 30/09/2018, in the terms of the Agreement to Sell, they in order to discharge their abovesaid liability towards complainant, issued two cheques i.e. cheque bearing no. 057140, dated 30-09-2018 for Rs.1,72,21,200/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Two Lacs Twenty One Thousand Two Hundred Only) and a cheque no.057141, dated 30/09/2018 for Rs.35,00,000/-(Rupees Thirty Five Lacs Only) both drawn on Central Bank of India, Sehani Branch, Meerut Road, Gaziabad, U.P., in favour of complainant to clear his part liability towards the complainant.

7. That in the terms of the Agreement to sell and after consultation with accused no.2, the complainant presented aforesaid cheques through his banker i.e., ESAF Bank Ltd. Sec.7, Rohini, Delhi to banker of accused for realisation, but to the utter surprise of complainant aforesaid cheques were dishonoured by the banker of accused for the "Funds Insufficient". The banker of accused accordingly sent their cheque returning memos alongwith aforesaid dishonoured cheques to the banker of complainant. The said cheques and returning memos were sent to complainant by the banker of accused on 17-12- 2018. The accused was not maintaining sufficient balance in his said account on the date of presentation of the said cheque. On receiving back the said dishonoured cheques, the complainant intimated the fate of the cheques to the accused.

8. That the said cheques have been issued by accused with ulterior motive and malafide intentions and at the time of issuing of said cheques the accused was fully aware of the fact that the same would be dishonoured on account of "Insufficient Balance", as he was not maintaining sufficient balance in his account to honour the cheques on the day of its presentation and as such the accused persons are guilty of committing of an offence punishable under section 138, 141 and 142 of Negotiable Instrument Act as amended up-to- date.

9. That immediately on receiving back the said dishonoured cheques, the complainant served the requisite notice dated 21-12-2018 sent on 21-12-2018 to the accused through Speed Post informing the him that his cheques as Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected mentioned above has been received back dishonoured with the remarks "Insufficient". Further the accused was called upon to remit the payment of amount of the said cheques within 15 days from the receipt of this notice. The notice has been duly served upon the accused. The accused did not make the payment of the aforesaid cheques amount as demanded in the said notice.

10. That the accused despite of the service of the said notice has failed to remit the payment due under the said cheques and/or this outstanding amount and as such have committed offence under section 138, 141 and 142 of the Banking Public Financial Institution and Negotiable Instrument Act, as amended up to date apart from other offences under other provisions of law.

11. That the cause of action arose at Delhi, where the cheques in question was received, the bank of the complainant falls within jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the amount was also payable at Delhi and the offence has been committed within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and hence this Hon'ble Court has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

12. That the cause of action for filing the complaint arose after the expiry of the period of 15 days from the service of the legal notice as the accused have failed to remit the payment demanded in the legal notice against the dishonoured cheque.” SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the agreement to sell was for a period of 2 years and as per the clause 7c of the said agreement, in case of breach of the agreement, i.e., on failure to hand- over the commercial units to the respondent, a post-dated cheque for a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- (Rupees thirty five lakhs only) bearing no. 057141 dated

30.09.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appreciation money’) was to be encashed by the respondent, over and above Rs. 1,72,21,200/- (Rupees one crore seventy two lakhs twenty one thousands and two hundred) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the principal amount’,) which was given to the respondent by petitioner Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected no. 1 vide a post-dated cheque bearing no. 057140 dated 30.09.2018. It was submitted that without any liability or debt, the said post-dated cheques have been misused by the respondent. It was further submitted that the respondent has filed 5 complaints against petitioner no. 1, including the present ones. The said complaints are as under: a) b) c) d) e) Ct. Case No. 3298/2019 for Rs. 1,72,21,200/- crores and Rs. 35,00,000/- lakhs. Ct. Case No. 740/2020 for Rs. 35,00,000/- lakhs. Ct. Case No. 743/2020 for Rs. 35,00,000/- lakhs. Ct. Case No. 13508/2019 for Rs. 35,00,000/- lakhs. Ct. Case No. 2823/2019 for Rs. 1,72,21,200/- crores and Rs. 35,00,000/- lakhs. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that an agreement for a period of two years with an alleged investment of Rs. 1,72,21,200/- (Rupees One crore seventy two lakhs twenty one thousands and two hundred only) cannot become Rs. 5,19,42,400/- (Rupees Five crores nineteen lakhs forty two thousands only.) Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indus Airways Private Limited and Others vs. Magnum Aviation Private Limited and Another1, in which it was held that on the date of representation of the cheque, there should be an existing liability. Thus, the case of the petitioners is that there was no liability existing at the time of presentation of the cheques. 1 (2014) 12 SCC 539 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected Reliance is placed on paragraph 9 of the aforesaid judgement, which reads as under: “9. The Explanation appended to Section 138 explains the meaning of the expression “debt or other liability” for the purpose of Section 138. This expression means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Section 138 treats dishonoured cheque as an offence, if the cheque has been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability. The Explanation leaves no manner of doubt that to attract an offence under Section 138, there should be a legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. In other words, drawal of the cheque in discharge of an existing or past adjudicated liability is sine qua non for bringing an offence under Section 138. If a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its cancellation or otherwise, and material or goods for which purchase order was placed is not supplied, in our considered view, the cheque cannot be held to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability. The payment by cheque in the nature of advance payment indicates that at the time of drawal of cheque, there was no existing liability.”

5.2. It was further submitted that as per the entries made by petitioner no. 1, the respondent had invested an amount of Rs. 66,50,000/- (Rupees sixty-six lakhs and fifty thousands only), whereas petitioner no. 1 had repaid an amount of Rs. 97,00,000/- (Rupees ninety-seven lakhs only) in the names of various family members of the respondent and therefore no liability was existing at the time of presentation of the said cheques.

5.3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that an arbitration petition bearing no. 273/2023 is already pending before a Coordinate Bench of this Court for alleged violation of the same agreement to sell dated 07.11.2016. On this account, it is submitted that the subject matter of the said agreement is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected sub judice in the arbitration petition before the said Bench. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the pendency of the arbitration proceedings and the present complaints are violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India, leading to multiple prosecutions on the same cause of action.

5.4. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has concealed the filing of other complaints which is contradictory to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H.2, in which it was held that a complaint under the Act should mandatorily disclose if any other complaint(s) has been filed with respect to the same transaction. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the present petitions are also covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others3. Reliance was placed on paragraph 102 of the said judgement, which reads as under: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to 2 (2010) 5 SCC 663 3 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

5.5. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that no specific averment has been made qua petitioner no. 1 in his capacity as the proprietor of the petitioner firm. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok Mal Bafna vs. Upper India Steal Manufacturing and Engineering Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected Company Limited4 in paragraphs 8 to 10, and 12 and 13. The said reads as under: “8. Interpreting the provisions of Section 141 this Court in National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal [National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330 : (2010) 1 SCC (Civ) 677 : (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 1113] observed that Section 141 is a penal provision creating vicarious liability, and which, as per settled law, must be strictly construed. It is therefore, not sufficient to make a bald cursory statement in a complaint that the Director (arrayed as an accused) is in charge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of business of the Company without anything more as to the role of the Director. But the complaint should spell out as to how and in what manner the accused was in charge of or was responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business. This is in consonance with strict interpretation of penal statutes especially where such statutes create vicarious liability.

9. To fasten vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Act on a person, the law is well settled by this Court in a catena of cases that the complainant should specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused was responsible. Simply because a person is a Director of a defaulter Company, does not make him liable under the Act. Time and again, it has been asserted by this Court that only the person who was at the helm of affairs of the Company and in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business at the time of commission of an offence will be liable for criminal action. (See Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra [Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 1 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 384 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 378 : AIR 2015 SC 675] .)

10. In other words, the law laid down by this Court is that for making a Director of a Company liable for the offences committed by the Company under Section 141 of the Act, there must be specific averments against the Director showing as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company. *** *** *** 4 (2018) 14 SCC 202 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected

12. Before summoning an accused under Section 138 of the Act, the Magistrate is expected to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and then to proceed further with proper application of mind to the legal principles on the issue. Impliedly, it is necessary for the courts to ensure strict compliance with the statutory requirements as well as settled principles of law before making a person vicariously liable.

13. The superior courts should maintain purity in the administration of justice and should not allow abuse of the process of court. Looking at the facts of the present case in the light of settled principles of law, we are of the view that this is a fit case for quashing the complaint. The High Court ought to have allowed the criminal miscellaneous application of the appellant because of the absence of clear particulars about the role of the appellant at the relevant time in the day-to-day affairs of the Company.”

5.6. Learned Senior Counsel with respect to petitioner no. 2 in CRL.M.C. 7912/2023 further submitted that the subject cheques which had been issued were from the joint account of the petitioners. Admittedly, the said cheques had not been signed by petitioner no. 2. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner no. 2 was neither a part of the agreement to sell nor related to the petitioner firm which had entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent. It is submitted that in the above circumstances, petitioner no. 2 has no role to play and could not have been prosecuted under Section 138 of the Act.

5.7. Reliance was also placed on the following judgements/orders: a) Meters and Instruments Private Limited and Another vs. Kanchan Mehta5 5 (2018) 1 SCC 560 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHIWANI NEGI Signing Date:18.04.2025 15:49:15 CRL.M.C. 8002/2023 and connected b) Vijay Gopala Lohar vs. Pandurang Ramchandra Ghorpade and Another6 c) ING Vysya Bank Limited and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another 7 d) Sanat kumar vs. Sanjay Sharma in CRL. M.C. 5509/2022 dated

20.09.2024 by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court e) Dr. S. Jaitley & Another vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 8 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

6.1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that no case is made out for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. as there is an equally efficacious and alternate remedy with the petitioners before the learned Trial Court.

6.2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the averment made on behalf of petitioner no. 1 about receiving a sum of Rs. 66,50,000/- (Rupees sixty-six lakhs and fifty thousands only) from the respondent is incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner firm has itself issued receipt for entire amount of Rs. 1,72,21,200/- (Rupees one crore seventy two lakhs twenty one thousands and two hundred rupees only) paid by the respondent. It