TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 318
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and summoning order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM), Patiala House Courts, Delhi in a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 being CC No. 29073/2016 titled Vodafone Idea Ltd. V. Tulip Telecom Limited, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). 2. Briefly stated, the complaint in the present case was filed by Respondent No. 2 against the petitioners in relation to an alleged dishonour of cheque dated 30.08.2013 on account of accused/drawer company's account being blocked due to a freezing order/notice dated 26.08.2013 issued by statutory authority - Office of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, New Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thers : (2000) 2 SCC 745 g) Nagaraja Upadhya v. M. Sanjeevan : 2007 SCC OnLine Kar 214 h) National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal : (2010) 3 SCC 330 6. Per Contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has vehemently opposed the present petition on the ground that the disputed facts are matter of trial and cannot be adjudicated in a petition invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his contention: a) Om Kumar Dhankar v. State of Haryana : (2012) 11 SCC 252 b) Vikram Singh v. Shyoji Ram : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 940 c) S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla : (2005) 8 SCC 89 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that the cheque exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement between the account holder and the bank. [Ref : Standard Chartered Bank v. State (supra)]. 10. The complaint, in the present case, does not state that the cheque was dishonoured on account of either of the two grounds on which liability under Section 138 of the NI Act can be made out. 11. The NI Act is a special law which was enacted for the purpose of speedy adjudication of the cases in relations to dishonour of the cheque. The purpose of the same was to instil the confidence of the public in the banking system. The provisions are attracted when a person draws a cheque from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e with the bank; (iv) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 15 days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; (v) the drawer of such cheque fails to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice." 13. Thus, a person commits an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act when he draws a cheque from an account maintained by him in a bank for discharge of any debt or any liability and the cheque is returned unpaid for the reason of the in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the NI Act. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in similar circumstance, in the case of Vijay Chaudhary v. Gyan Chand Jain : 2008 SCC OnLine Del 554 held as under: "....It also cannot be said that after the attachment of the bank account, the same was being maintained by the petitioner. For an account to be maintained by an account holder, it is essential that he is in a position to operate the said account by either depositing monies therein or by withdrawing money therefrom. He should be in a position to give effective instructions to his banker with whom the account is maintained. However, in the present case, once the account has been attached by an order of the Court, the said account could not be operated by the petitioner. He....