Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioners challenged an order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Revision Court dismissing their criminal revision petition, which had sought to set aside the order dated 20.06.2019 whereby processes and summons were issued against them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a cheque dishonour complaint. The petitioners contended that the dishonoured cheque was issued by the erstwhile Manager of their deceased mother's proprietorship concern, Pradip Kumar, without any authorisation, after the death of the sole proprietress, and that they were neither signatories to the cheque nor in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of either the proprietorship or the subsequent unregistered partnership firm.
The petitioners argued that the Metropolitan Magistrate had mechanically issued process and summons without appreciating that the essential ingredients of Sections 138 and 141 of the NI Act were not made out against them, as the complaint contained no allegation that they were responsible for the conduct of the business of M/s G.M. Enterprises. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's decision in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others, (1998) 5 SCC 749, to the effect that summoning an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the Magistrate must apply his mind to the facts and applicable law before issuing summons.
The exemption applications filed in both petitions were allowed subject to all just exceptions and disposed of. The stay applications in both petitions were taken up along with the main petitions for consideration by the High Court.
Catchwords:
Negotiable Instruments Act · cheque dishonour · Section 138 · Section 141 · proprietorship concern · unregistered partnership firm · sole proprietress · legal heirs · day-to-day affairs · issuance of process · summons · application of mind · Magistrate · criminal revision · Section 482 CrPC · forged cheque · misappropriation · fictitious bills
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court - Orders
Puneet Bhasin vs Khanna Traders And Engineers on 25 April, 2024
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~85 & 86
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
85
+ CRL.M.C. 3183/2024
PUNEET BHASIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Karan Singh Rajput, Mr. Karan Khanuja,
Mr. Pushpendra S. Bhadoriya, Mr. Mihir Joshi and
Mr. Udbhav Sinha, Advocates
versus
KHANNA TRADERS AND ENGINEERS ..... Respondent
Through: None.
86
+ CRL.M.C. 3210/2024
ARSHPREET BHASIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sidhart
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.