Court upholds summoning order under Section 138, dismisses petitioner's contentions, emphasizes factual defenses at trial.

The court upheld the summoning order dated 16.12.2014, confirming the existence of a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner's contentions were dismissed, with the court finding no merit in their arguments. The court emphasized the need for factual defenses to be addressed during trial rather than directly approaching the High Court. All pending applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of summoning order dated 16.12.2014.
2. Validity of cheques issued for security purposes.
3. Existence of legal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
4. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint.
5. Abuse of process of law by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Summoning Order Dated 16.12.2014:
The petitioner sought to quash the summoning order dated 16.12.2014 issued by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (NI Act)/West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in C.C. No. 2807/1/2014. The petitioner argued that the order was bad in law and fact, and thus liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the court found that the summoning order was based on a complaint supported by an affidavit and documents, satisfying the ingredients for taking cognizance under Section 138 of the NI Act. The court held that the summoning order was not bad in law.

2. Validity of Cheques Issued for Security Purposes:
The petitioner contended that the cheques in question were handed over solely for security purposes and not for any existing legal liability. The court referred to Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes that a person signing a cheque gives prima facie authority to the holder to complete it as a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein. The court also cited the judgment in ICDS Ltd. vs. Beena Shabeer, which held that even cheques issued for security purposes could be subject to Section 138 if there was a legally enforceable debt.

3. Existence of Legal Liability Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The court examined whether there was an existing liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner had issued two post-dated cheques as part of the payment for the property purchase. One of these cheques, for Rs. 1,31,00,000, was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court noted that the petitioner had admitted to issuing the cheques and found that there was an existing liability as per the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 01.11.2013. The court held that the ingredients for an offense under Section 138 were satisfied.

4. Jurisdiction of the Court to Entertain the Complaint:
The petitioner argued that the initial complaint was filed in a court lacking jurisdiction, and thus the subsequent proceedings were invalid. The court noted that the complaint was initially returned due to lack of jurisdiction and was refiled in the appropriate court following the Supreme Court's directions in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra. Therefore, the court held that the jurisdictional issue was rectified, and the proceedings were valid.

5. Abuse of Process of Law by the Petitioner:
The respondent argued that the petition was a gross misuse and abuse of the process of law, as the petitioner directly approached the High Court without first addressing the factual defenses during the trial. The court agreed with the respondent, stating that the grounds raised by the petitioner were factual defenses to be proved during the trial. The court emphasized that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings is higher than in civil proceedings, allowing for parallel proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's contentions and dismissed the petition. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner were deemed not helpful in the present case. The court upheld the summoning order dated 16.12.2014 and confirmed the existence of a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the NI Act. All pending applications were also disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.

---