J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan others) vide order dated

1. Heard Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 13.10.2023 including entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.12756 of 2021, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Agra.

3. Facts in brief are that the applicant is doing business of medicines, opposite party no.2 is retailer of medicines, who has placed an order to deliver the medicines and paid Rs.75,00,000/- to opposite party no.2, however, medicines were not delivered by the applicant to opposite party no.2, when opposite party no.2 asked the applicant to return his money back, the applicant returned Rs.10,00,000/- only, thereafter, the applicant gave one cheque of Rs.32,50,000/- to opposite party no.2, which got bounced, against which opposite party no.2 initiated proceeding under Section 138 N.I.Act against the applicant, which is pending consideration. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against opposite party no.2 for the amount, which was still outstanding, wherein the Court concerned after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has issued summons against the applicant, which has been assailed by means of instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the same incident, once the proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act is pending second proceeding cannot be initiated as this issue has already been referred by the larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CRL.) No.2864 of 2019 (J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan & others) vide order dated 11.08.2022.

5. Per contra, learned AGA appears on behalf of the State and submits that it is apparent that after taking the money, the applicant has failed to deliver the goods and the applicant has only returned Rs.10,00,000/- out of Rs.75,00,000/-. Thereafter, he gave a cheque of Rs.32,50,000/- (being 50% of the balance outstanding amount), which had also been bounced. Therefore, the applicant was left with no option but to initiate proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act with regard to the cheque, which has been bounced being the first part of the outstanding amount, and for the rest amount which the applicant has not returned, opposite party no.2 has initiated criminal proceeding. He further submits that since there is an angle of cheating, hence, the order passed by the Court below is perfectly justified and requires no interference by this Court.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is not in dispute that the applicant had received Rs.75,00,000/- for delivering the medicines but the same was not delivered and when the applicant asked to refund the money, only Rs.10,00,000/- was refunded, the balance was not refunded. On further request a cheque of Rs.32,50,000/- was given, which was half of the balance amount, which got bounced for which separate proceeding is going on. When the applicant went to ask for the rest amount, he was mistreated and threatened, hence, the applicant has filed a complaint in which after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the Court has issued summons. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant was given an option that in case, the applicant want to settle the dispute outside the Court, this matter may be referred for Mediation, which was completely negated.

7. It is apparent that the money was received by the applicant, however, he has no intention to pay back the same. The cheque given by him for half of the outstanding amount has also bounced.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh reported in AIR201 SSC 3657 in paragraph no.11 has held as follows:- "11. The inherent power of the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly used. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is a well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."

09. Further, in the matter of Punit Beriwala vs The State of NCT of Delhi and others, 2025 INSC 571, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "......... This Court is of the view that because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.) (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Heed v. State of UP (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals vs. Rajesh Aggarwal (1999) 8 SCC 686.]

10. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Sharma vs. Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd. and another, 2025 INSC 571.

11. It is apparent that the applicant had usurp the money of opposite party no.2 and is not returning the same back with the sole intention of cheating. It will be a manifest injustice and pure abuse of process of law, if such kind of conduct is allowed to be continued. The Court is of the view that just because of earlier proceeding (under Section 138 of N.I. Act), opposite party no.2 cannot be prevented to proceed with the instant proceeding despite the fact that half of the amount is pending. Apparently there is an intention of cheating, where the applicant had taken money to supply medicines and neither it supplied medicine nor returned money. It is clear that there is a mens rea.

12. In view of aforesaid discussions as well as the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as enumerated above, I see no illegality in the impugned summoning order. Moreover, the observation given in this order would not come in the way of the trial and the trial should be concluded expeditiously being unaffected by the observations in this order.

13. The instant application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 S.P.

1. Heard Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel, Shri Shashidhar Pandey, learned AGA for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of summoning order dated 13.10.2023 including entire proceedings of Complaint Case No.12756 of 2021, under Section 406 IPC, P.S. Sikandra, Agra, pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Agra.

3. Facts in brief are that the applicant is doing business of medicines, opposite party no.2 is retailer of medicines, who has placed an order to deliver the medicines and paid Rs.75,00,000/- to opposite party no.2, however, medicines were not delivered by the applicant to opposite party no.2, when opposite party no.2 asked the applicant to return his money back, the applicant returned Rs.10,00,000/- only, thereafter, the applicant gave one cheque of Rs.32,50,000/- to opposite party no.2, which got bounced, against which opposite party no.2 initiated proceeding under Section 138 N.I.Act against the applicant, which is pending consideration. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 filed a complaint against opposite party no.2 for the amount, which was still outstanding, wherein the Court concerned after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. has issued summons against the applicant, which has been assailed by means of instant application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that for the same incident, once the proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act is pending second proceeding cannot be initiated as this issue has already been referred by the larger bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (CRL.) No.2864 of 2019 (J. Vedhasingh v. R.M. Govindan & others) vide order dated 11.08.2022.

5. Per contra, learned AGA appears on behalf of the State and submits that it is apparent that after taking the money, the applicant has failed to deliver the goods and the applicant has only returned Rs.10,00,000/- out of Rs.75,00,000/-. Thereafter, he gave a cheque of Rs.32,50,000/- (being 50% of the balance outstanding amount), which had also been bounced. Therefore, the applicant was left with no option but to initiate proceeding under Section 138 N.I. Act with regard to the cheque, which has been bounced being the first part of the outstanding amount, and for the rest amount which the applicant has not returned, opposite party no.2 has initiated criminal proceeding. He further submits that since there is an angle of cheating, hence, the order passed by the Court below is perfectly justified and requires no interference by this Court.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is not in dispute that the applicant had received Rs.75,00,000/- for delivering the medicines but the same was not delivered and when the applicant asked to refund the money, only Rs.10,00,000/- was refunded, the balance was not refunded. On further request a cheque of Rs.32,50,000/- was given, which was half of the balance amount, which got bounced for which separate proceeding is going on. When the applicant went to ask for the rest amount, he was mistreated and threatened, hence, the applicant has filed a complaint in which after recording statements under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the Court has issued summons. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant was given an option that in case, the applicant want to settle the dispute outside the Court, this matter may be referred for Mediation, which was completely negated.

7. It is apparent that the money was received by the applicant, however, he has no intention to pay back the same. The cheque given by him for half of the outstanding amount has also bounced.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bureau of Investigation v. Maninder Singh reported in AIR201 SSC 3657 in paragraph no.11 has held as follows:- "11. The inherent power of the High Court Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be sparingly used. Only when the Court comes to the conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. In economic offences Court must not only keep in view that money has been paid to the bank which has been defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence with which we are concerned is a well planned and was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank would be a misplaced sympathy. If the prosecution against the economic offenders are not allowed to continue, the entire community is aggrieved."

09. Further, in the matter of Punit Beriwala vs The State of NCT of Delhi and others, 2025 INSC 571, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "......... This Court is of the view that because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.) (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Heed v. State of UP (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals vs. Rajesh Aggarwal (1999) 8 SCC 686.]

10. Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Sharma vs. Emgee Cables and Communication Ltd. and another, 2025 INSC 571.

11. It is apparent that the applicant had usurp the money of opposite party no.2 and is not returning the same back with the sole intention of cheating. It will be a manifest injustice and pure abuse of process of law, if such kind of conduct is allowed to be continued. The Court is of the view that just because of earlier proceeding (under Section 138 of N.I. Act), opposite party no.2 cannot be prevented to proceed with the instant proceeding despite the fact that half of the amount is pending. Apparently there is an intention of cheating, where the applicant had taken money to supply medicines and neither it supplied medicine nor returned money. It is clear that there is a mens rea.

12. In view of aforesaid discussions as well as the settled principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as enumerated above, I see no illegality in the impugned summoning order. Moreover, the observation given in this order would not come in the way of the trial and the trial should be concluded expeditiously being unaffected by the observations in this order.

13. The instant application lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 S.P.