w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Lords Creative Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Another v/s State of Uttarakhand & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- E 2 E SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2000PTC107313

Company & Directors' Information:- J T L INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L27106CH1991PLC011536

Company & Directors' Information:- CREATIVE LTD [Active] CIN = U19129WB1991PLC053780

Company & Directors' Information:- E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007TN1999PTC043325

Company & Directors' Information:- LORD'S CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1994PLC076969

Company & Directors' Information:- H N COMPANY INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201NL2005PTC007743

Company & Directors' Information:- D S R SOLUTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1999PLC032008

Company & Directors' Information:- N A R INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2010PTC066556

Company & Directors' Information:- T AND T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2012PTC144893

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC257168

Company & Directors' Information:- S R C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2014PTC073052

Company & Directors' Information:- S G F INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400JK2013PTC003837

Company & Directors' Information:- E-3 SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74910DL1998PTC096512

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC269040

Company & Directors' Information:- R E INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2007PTC175255

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2013PTC055996

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202AS2008PTC008561

Company & Directors' Information:- V A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2006PTC049266

Company & Directors' Information:- D P SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U22221DL2000PTC107837

Company & Directors' Information:- R K INFRA(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2010PTC054009

Company & Directors' Information:- N Q SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909OR2009PTC011136

Company & Directors' Information:- I V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309PB2008PTC031932

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109PB2012PLC036738

Company & Directors' Information:- I. S. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007TG1997PTC028047

Company & Directors' Information:- L T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2000PTC033248

Company & Directors' Information:- A H INFRA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31501WB2010PLC155151

Company & Directors' Information:- V & H INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203MH2008PTC181787

Company & Directors' Information:- L D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2015PTC286921

Company & Directors' Information:- A S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2010PTC202208

Company & Directors' Information:- I S P SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2001PTC009755

Company & Directors' Information:- S P E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300DL2006PTC155569

Company & Directors' Information:- S R U INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2014PTC065614

Company & Directors' Information:- S G U INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2015PTC071682

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M INFRA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202MH2010PTC204123

Company & Directors' Information:- CREATIVE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007WB1998PTC087791

Company & Directors' Information:- T X G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U72200DL2006PTC150671

Company & Directors' Information:- H D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2009PTC194392

Company & Directors' Information:- N. S. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200UP2021PTC142424

Company & Directors' Information:- H & K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040GJ2009PTC059027

Company & Directors' Information:- F A S T SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22100MH1989PTC052935

Company & Directors' Information:- M G D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2015PTC069886

Company & Directors' Information:- J & I SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC236993

Company & Directors' Information:- N AND S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA1999PTC025555

Company & Directors' Information:- K R D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TZ2020PTC034945

Company & Directors' Information:- U-TO SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100MH2000PTC130052

Company & Directors' Information:- Z D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2007PTC062584

Company & Directors' Information:- P I T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KL2000PTC014018

Company & Directors' Information:- O AND M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210OR2005PTC008166

Company & Directors' Information:- R P A S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2008PTC057538

Company & Directors' Information:- G L F SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67190KL2013PTC035455

Company & Directors' Information:- S P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U72200DL2011PTC213318

Company & Directors' Information:- S. S. G. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG1996PTC023719

Company & Directors' Information:- Z INFRA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2009PLC010795

Company & Directors' Information:- S B M INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TR2010PTC008299

Company & Directors' Information:- S AND N CREATIVE PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17299KA2020PTC141044

Company & Directors' Information:- I T SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL1996PTC076426

Company & Directors' Information:- S INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45201OR2012PTC016064

Company & Directors' Information:- U & V CREATIVE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2000PTC107332

Company & Directors' Information:- J D C INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209HR2012PTC045407

Company & Directors' Information:- S S P L INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201OR2011PTC013469

Company & Directors' Information:- K B SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140PB2011PTC035055

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. M. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC211055

Company & Directors' Information:- V V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TG2008PTC059111

Company & Directors' Information:- H A SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC104116

Company & Directors' Information:- R V G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL2011PTC219732

Company & Directors' Information:- V. J. L. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999UP2018PTC109127

Company & Directors' Information:- 1 TO 5 SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U74999AS2020PTC020427

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND C SOLUTIONS (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000PY1995PLC001144

Company & Directors' Information:- S P G N INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200AP2015PTC096326

Company & Directors' Information:- AMP SOLUTIONS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80302CH2001PLC024420

Company & Directors' Information:- Y. C. INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2010PTC151352

Company & Directors' Information:- D V M SOLUTIONS LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U74140DL1999PLC102362

Company & Directors' Information:- J K S INFRA (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2012PLC036363

Company & Directors' Information:- J S N INFRA (INDIA) LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2012PLC050189

Company & Directors' Information:- T S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200UP2000PTC025406

Company & Directors' Information:- U & F SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN2013PTC089891

Company & Directors' Information:- R V J INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200DL2013PTC249181

Company & Directors' Information:- J J INFRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209AP2011PTC078174

Company & Directors' Information:- A R INFRA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109MP2007PTC020049

Company & Directors' Information:- INFRA SOLUTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2001PTC110941

Company & Directors' Information:- R R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309BR2008PTC013387

Company & Directors' Information:- B A SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2006PTC155492

Company & Directors' Information:- CREATIVE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH1995PTC087788

Company & Directors' Information:- C A AND S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200AP2000PTC034546

Company & Directors' Information:- H P INFRA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101OR2011PTC014629

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND U SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U67200OR2004PTC007651

Company & Directors' Information:- G K V INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200PN2011PTC141814

Company & Directors' Information:- R A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51101MH2013PTC249132

Company & Directors' Information:- R T W SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200MH2004PTC145773

Company & Directors' Information:- A E T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2004PTC036640

Company & Directors' Information:- K N P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TG2011PTC076036

Company & Directors' Information:- I SOLUTIONS(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2004PTC052692

Company & Directors' Information:- R V I T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC137434

Company & Directors' Information:- R M T SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210KA2011PTC056861

Company & Directors' Information:- E M C SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA1996PTC020112

Company & Directors' Information:- R I SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392WB1999PTC088640

Company & Directors' Information:- M R K INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209TG2012PTC080558

Company & Directors' Information:- N G L SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KL2001PTC014656

Company & Directors' Information:- L S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U67190DL2020PTC371664

Company & Directors' Information:- S P K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TZ2003PTC010438

Company & Directors' Information:- 9 I SOLUTIONS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2005PTC048565

Company & Directors' Information:- S G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999BR2008PTC013392

Company & Directors' Information:- K P N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900KA2011PTC057705

Company & Directors' Information:- V N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2009PTC195421

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2007PTC161367

Company & Directors' Information:- J K B SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2015PTC284162

Company & Directors' Information:- S R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200HR2000PTC055629

Company & Directors' Information:- B E SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2005PTC037127

Company & Directors' Information:- G R K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TG2002PTC039029

Company & Directors' Information:- G N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65993PN2008PTC132031

Company & Directors' Information:- J .S .SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PB2007PTC030855

Company & Directors' Information:- L G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TN2014PTC095310

Company & Directors' Information:- SOLUTIONS @ PANORAMA TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040MH2010PTC199347

Company & Directors' Information:- A.N.D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2013PTC244625

Company & Directors' Information:- V & M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PN2014PTC150848

Company & Directors' Information:- G K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC149891

Company & Directors' Information:- G K A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2004PTC150210

Company & Directors' Information:- A A S R INFRA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2012PTC078624

Company & Directors' Information:- H. R. SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120TG2012PTC081581

Company & Directors' Information:- S A E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200WB2012PTC181964

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999WB2012PTC185025

Company & Directors' Information:- O S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93000JK2012PTC003733

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24100CH2015PTC035482

Company & Directors' Information:- A T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2009PTC031621

Company & Directors' Information:- J G INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209CH2012PTC034095

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392CH2010PTC032232

Company & Directors' Information:- G S L SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC164747

Company & Directors' Information:- F K SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC186101

Company & Directors' Information:- W E INFRA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2013PTC260394

Company & Directors' Information:- B. R. SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2002PTC116699

Company & Directors' Information:- G. M. S E-SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC235662

Company & Directors' Information:- A N S SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2012PTC245060

Company & Directors' Information:- S & T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140DL2013PTC247089

Company & Directors' Information:- M A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2014PTC265618

Company & Directors' Information:- S A N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2002PTC117534

Company & Directors' Information:- O J S G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2014PTC267923

Company & Directors' Information:- E & P INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL2014PTC271401

Company & Directors' Information:- I G SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2012PTC244223

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T INFRA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL2015PTC276336

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. INFRA SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70200DL2009PTC195352

Company & Directors' Information:- K T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL2010PTC199408

Company & Directors' Information:- S N R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72100DL2011PTC216142

Company & Directors' Information:- P G I T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2005PTC139469

Company & Directors' Information:- H R SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1995PTC073143

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 Z SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2001PTC109658

Company & Directors' Information:- A P D SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900DL2013PTC249969

Company & Directors' Information:- A 4 INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL2012PTC233921

Company & Directors' Information:- V R A A P SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74950DL2014PTC271337

Company & Directors' Information:- K & H INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209AP2013PTC090417

Company & Directors' Information:- R - N - A E - SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900KA2008PTC045680

Company & Directors' Information:- V S T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74900KA2010PTC053117

Company & Directors' Information:- V SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA2010PTC052832

Company & Directors' Information:- N R L SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KA2013PTC069148

Company & Directors' Information:- C D E F INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200KA2011PTC057888

Company & Directors' Information:- S V SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140GJ2007PTC051390

Company & Directors' Information:- M M D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101GJ2013PTC075444

Company & Directors' Information:- P M D INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201GJ2007PTC050762

Company & Directors' Information:- H M I SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203HR2021PTC094104

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200PN2008PTC131887

Company & Directors' Information:- T N B SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2007GAT171606

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100TG2008PTC061671

Company & Directors' Information:- H F SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC168577

Company & Directors' Information:- K V M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC180136

Company & Directors' Information:- T F M SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140KL2007PTC021232

Company & Directors' Information:- A R C O N SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KL2007PTC020421

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900GJ2007PTC051103

    Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 2255 of 2019

    Decided On, 21 July 2020

    At, High Court of Uttarakhand

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI

    For the Petitioners: S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate. For the Respondent: R2, Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, Shubhash Tyagi Bharadwaj, D.A.G.



Judgment Text

Ravindra Maithani, J.1. Challenge in this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) is to an order dated 21.1.2019 passed in Complaint Case No. 8523 of 2018, M/s. Tanuk Pharma India Limited v. M/s. Lords Creative Infra Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and Others, by the Court of learned IVth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, District Dehradun (for short “the Case”). By this impugned order, the petitioners have been summoned under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”).2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties through video conferencing and perused the record.3. Facts necessary for disposal of the instant petition are as hereunder:The respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the petitioners. According to the complaint, the parties entered into an agreement on 28.9.2016. In pursuance thereof, a cheque amounting to Rs. 1 crore was given by the respondent No. 2 to the petitioners. When the petitioners did not honour the terms of the agreement, they gave a cheque of Rs. 1 crore to the respondent No. 2, which on presentation was dishonoured. Notice was given, but the amount of cheque was not paid. Hence, the present complaint has been filed. After conducting enquiry, by the impugned order, the petitioners and one another have been summoned under Section 138 of the Act. Aggrieved by it the instant petition has been filed.4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would raise the following points in his submission:(i) The summoning order is bad in the eyes of law because to arrive at a conclusion that prima facie, case is made out, the agreement was never perused by the Court; without perusal of the agreement, it could not have been detected that any terms of the agreement was ever violated by the petitioners.(ii) It was a case of ‘stop payment’ and not a case of dishonour of cheque, due to insufficient funds.(iii) The cheque was given as a security. The petitioners wanted the security cheque back from respondent No. 2. When the cheque was not returned by the respondent No. 2, in fact, the petitioners complained it to the Senior Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, Rajasthan.(iv) It has not been shown that the cheque was given for discharge of any debt or liability.(v) The agreement was executed in the year 2016, and on that date itself, the cheque was given as post-dated cheque. It has been pleaded by the petitioners in their petition, which reflects that, in fact, on the date when cheque was given, there was no existing debt or liability. In support of his contention leaned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited, VII (2016) SLT 25=IV (2016) DLT (Cri.) 235 (SC)=(2016) 10 SCC 458.(vi) Since, there was no existing debt or liability, there is no question of presumption under Section 139 of the Act.(vii) In the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, the Court should consider the documents to find out as to whether continuance of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of Court. In support of his argument, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the principle of law as reported in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. v. M.A. Abida and Another, II (2015) BC 267 (SC)=II (2015) CCR 97 (SC)=III (2015) SLT 93.=(2015) 11 SCC 776. In para 11 of the judgment in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra) the principles laid down in the case of Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd.,I (2008) CCR 93 (SC)=I (2008) DLT (Cri) 329 (SC)=(2008) 13 SCC 678, has been referred to, wherein, it was inter alia, held that “It, however, does not mean that documents of unimpeachable character should not be taken into consideration at any cost for the purpose of finding out as to whether continuance of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of Court....”5. On behalf of the respondent learned Senior Counsel would argue that the cheque is not post-dated; parties entered into an agreement on 28.9.2016 and on that date, it is the respondent No. 2, who had given a cheque of Rs. 1 crore to the petitioners. When the petitioners did not honour the terms of the agreement, they issued the cheque. Therefore, it is argued that the cheque was given for the discharge of existing liability. It is also argued that even, if the cheque was given as security, it would attract the provisions of Section 138 of the Act and presumption under Section 139 of the Act could be raised. In support of his argument reliance has been placed to the principles laid down in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra) wherein, it was inter alia, held whether the cheque was given as security or not, is a question of fact ‘which could have been determined only by the Trial Court after recording evidence of the parties’.6. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 would also argue that in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code, the disputed question of facts cannot be gone into and they may be decided at the trial. In support of his contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R. Radha Krishna v. Dasari Deepthi and Others, (2019) 15 SCC 550. In the case of A.R. Radha Krishna, the Hon’ble Court emphasized the requirement of describing the role of Directors in cases under Section 138 of the Act.7. Before the arguments are appreciated, it may be noted that there has been another argument, which is advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners with regard to the judgment given in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, on the one hand placed reliance on para 11 of the judgment in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra), but on the other hand, after the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 2 were concluded, he would argue that the judgment in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra) is per-incuriam, in view of the judgment in the case of Rajiv Thapar & Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor, I (2013) SLT 524=I (2013) CCR 433 (SC)=(2013) 3 SCC 330. When the Court requested learned Senior Counsel to tell as to how, it is per-incuriam, he would refer to para 29 of the judgment of Rajiv Thapar (supra), which is as hereunder:“29. The issue being examined in the instant case is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., if it chooses to quash the initiation of the prosecution against an accused at the stage of issuing process, or at the stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charges. These are all stages before the commencement of the actual trial. The same parameters would naturally be available for later stages as well. The power vested in the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C., at the stages referred to hereinabove, would have far-reaching consequences inasmuch as it would negate the prosecution’s/complainant’s case without allowing the prosecution/complainant to lead evidence. Such a determination must always be rendered with caution, care and circumspection. To invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. It should be sufficient to rule out, reject and discard the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant, without the necessity of recording any evidence. For this the material relied upon by the defence should not have been refuted, or alternatively, cannot be justifiably refuted, being material of sterling and impeccable quality. The material relied upon by the accused should be such as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would prevent abuse of process of the Court, and secure the ends of justice.”8. A bare perusal of the above observation, in the case of Rajiv Thapar (supra), would reveal that it relates to the scope of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code, vis-a-vis, Section 138 of the Act. How is it per-incuriam? Neither any statute nor any Law declared has been ignored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra). Not only these two cases, but there are number of cases dealing with the scope of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code. In the case of R.P. Kapoor v. State of Punjab, 1960 (SLT SOFT) 279=AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, I (2006) CCR 209 (SC)=1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and in many other cases, guidelines have been laid down for exercising, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. In fact, the principles in regard to this matter have been culled out in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Limited and Others, V (2006) SLT 475=III (2006) CCR 128 (SC)=(2006) 6 SCC 736 as follows:“12. The principles relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints and criminal proceedings have been stated and reiterated by this Court in several decisions. To mention a few—Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , I (2006) CCR 209 (SC)=1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1059, Central Bureau of Investigation v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996) 5 SCC 591 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1045, State of Bihar v. Rajendra Agrawalla, 1996) 8 SCC 164 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 628, Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi, II (1999) SLT 523=II (1999) CCR 4 (SC)=(1999) 3 SCC 259 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 401, Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. v. Biological E. Ltd., II (2000) SLT 414=I (2000) CCR 288 (SC)=(2000) 3 SCC 269 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 615, Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786, M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, VII (2001) SLT 188=IV (2001) CCR 117 (SC)=(2001) 8 SCC 645 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 19 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. v. Mohd. Sharaful Haque, VI (2004) SLT 513=IV (2004) CCR 220 (SC)=(2005) 1 SCC 122 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 283.The principles, relevant to our purpose are:(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in 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 the case alleged against the accused.For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the Court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.(iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution.(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceeding are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.”9. Merely, because the judgment of Rajiv Thapar case (supra) has not been referred to in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra), the judgment in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra) does not become per- incurium. Therefore the argument that the judgement in the case of HMT Watches Ltd. (supra) is per-incuriam has no force.10. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is of wide magnitude and the principles, which governs the jurisdiction is to do complete justice. The principles are based on Quando lex aliquid alicui concedit, concedere videtur et id sine quo res ipsae esse non potest i.e. when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives also all those things, without which the thing itself would be unavailable. The section does not confer any new power. It is, in fact, to act ex debito justitiae, which means to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which, alone the Court exists [Dinesh Datt Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Another, VII (2001) SLT 131=IV (2001) CCR 107 (SC)=(2001) 8 SCC 570 and Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, VII (2012) SLT 154=IV (2012) DLT (CRL.) 78 (SC)=IV (2012) CCR 99 (SC)=I (2013) DLT (Cri) 947=(2012) 9 SCC 460]. One of the principles, which govern the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is that the disputed question of facts should not be generally gone into. But then instant is a case, which is little different than any other criminal case. The basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is ‘innocent until proved guilty’, but in the cases of presumption, there is “reverse evidentiary burden” on the accused.11. In cases of legal presumption, the standard for establishing prima-facie case is different, because, once basic facts to raise presumptions are established the presumption clause would come into play. This presumption may be rebutted by the accussed by the standard of “preponderance of probabilities”. But, it is a matter for evidence during trial.12. Instant is a case, which makes certain presumptions. It is a case under Section 138 of the Act. The Act makes certain presumptions with regard to Negotiable Instruments “that the holder is a holder in due course” it is given under Section 118 of the Act, which this Court need not reproduce. There is another very important section, which is Section 139 of the Act, which is as hereunder:“Presumption in favour of holder—It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.”13. Reference has been made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners to the judgment in the case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao (supra) and specifically para 8 to it, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court placed reliance in the judgment of Indus Airways Private Limited and Others v. Magnum Aviation Private Limited and Another, II (2014) BC 698 (SC)=IV (2014) SLT 321=II (2014) CCR 385 (SC)=2014(12) SCC 539.14. In the case of Indus Airways (supra), a cheque was given as advanced payment for purchase of goods but the purchase order could not be carried out to its logical conclusion, under such circumstances the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that such cheque “cannot be said to have been drawn for an existing debt or liability”.15. Instant is not a case of advance payment. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners himself, it was a cheque given as a security. Although according to the respondent No. 2, it was a cheque given for discharge of existing liability. It’s a question of fact, which is in dispute now.16. The presumption if made under law, are to be rebutted. Though the legal burden always remains with the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but once presumption is raised the onus shifts on the accussed to rebut it by the standard of “preponderance of probabilities”. There is no dispute about the fact that the cheque was given by the petitioners. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 2 was holder of the cheque in due course. It is this situation, which raises presumption under Section 139 of the Act. The following principles may be just considered in the context of Section 138 of the Act vis-a-vis Section 482 of the Code:(i) At the initial stage, a plea of the accused cannot be entertained and accepted by the High Court to quash the complaint (Maruti Udyog Limited v. Narender and Others, (1999) 1 SCC 113.(ii) The Court cannot go into the merits and/or come to a conclusion that there was no existing debt or liability. [M.M.T.C. Ltd. case (supra) para 13].(iii) Applying the said definitions of “proved” or “disproved” to the principle behind Section 118(a) of the Act, the Court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that the consideration does not exist. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon (M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, III (2006) BC 433 (SC)=V (2006) SLT 252=III (2006) CCR 76 (SC)=(2006) 6 SCC 39 para 30).(iv) There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability (M.M.T.C. Ltd. case (supra) para 17).(v) Even though the cheque is dishonoured by reason of “stop payment” instruction, an offence under Section 138 of the Act could still be made out (M.M.T.C. Ltd. case (supra) para 19).(vi) The presumption mandated by Section 138 of the Act, does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. (Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, II (2010) BC 693 (SC)=IV (2010) SLT 56=II (2010) DLT (CRL.

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

) 699 (SC)=II (2010) CCR 433 (SC)=(2010) 11 SCC 441 para 26)(vii) Whether the cheque was given as a security or not or whether there was an outstanding liability or not is a question of fact, which could have been determined only by the Trial Court, after recording the evidence of the parties. These aspects cannot be examined under Section 482 of the Code. (HMT Watches Ltd. (supra) para 10)17. In the instant case, what is being argued is that the learned Court below did not peruse the agreement and without it, it could not have been detected that any condition of the agreement was violated or offence made out. This argument has no substance because it is a case under Section 138 of the Act; because the respondent No. 2 is holder in due course of the cheque; because there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Act that unless, the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque in whole or in part for the discharge of any debt or liability; because “stop payment” also attracts the provision of Section 138 of the Act; because even if the cheque is given as security, and is dishonoured, it also attracts the provision of Section 138 of the Act. It may also be noted that disputed question of facts cannot be examined in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code.18. An argument has also been raised on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act cannot be raised because the cheque was not given in discharge of any liability. As stated, in cases like the instant case, even the complainant need not write about the factum of the liability. He has categorically stated that he was given a cheque and he is holder in due course of the cheque. In view of the settled legal position, the presumption under Section 139 of the Act is automatically raised. Petitioners may have the liberty to rebut the presumption at the trial.19. In view of what is stated hereinbefore, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the petition and it deserves to be dismissed.20. The instant petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed.
O R