Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 80 CC NI ACT 3975/2023 KANWAL TEWARI Vs. KALU RAM DHINGRA /0 (Maurya
Enclave)
Proceedings conducted online through video conferencing using CISCO WEBEX
software.
18.02.2025
Lawyers are abstaining from work today.
Present: Sh. Arpit Verma, Ld. Counsel for the complainant through VC.
Clarifications advanced by Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Put up for clarifications/order at 4 PM.
At 4:00 PM,
Present: As above.
Vide order dt. 24.02.2024 as well as 28.05.2024, certain clarifications were
sought from Ld. Counsel for the complainant regarding maintainability of the complaint.
Perusal of digital file reveals that the complaint has been filed against four
accused persons namely Kalu Ram Dhingra (accused no. 1 as well as proprietor of
accused no. 2 firm), M/s Dhingra Associates (accused no. 2 firm), Aakash Dhingra
(accused no. 3 as well as proprietor of accused no. 4 firm) and M/s World Link
Corporation (accused no. 4 firm). Two of the cheques in question have been issued from
the account of accused no. 2 firm M/s Dhingra Associates and three cheques in question
have been issued from the account of accused no. 4 M/s World Link Corporation. It is
pertinent to note that accused no. 2 & 4 are separate proprietorship firms with accused no.
1 and 3 being the proprietors and also in the relationship of father and son.
A specific query was raised by the Ld. Predecessor regarding the
maintainability of the present complaint against the two different accused persons with
reference to different cheques in question.
Arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the complainant. Further,
compilation of judgments furnished on court's email ID on 28.05.2024.
It is argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the cheques in question
have been issued by the accused persons arising out of an oral transaction between the
parties pertaining to sale and purchase of Unit bearing no. GF-46, Commerical Complex,
-- 1 of 2 --
-2-
Pearl Omaxe situated on Plot No. B-1 at District Centre, Wazirpur, Netaji Subhash Place,
Delhi. Further it is submitted that the cheques in question were issued by accused no. 1
and 3 in discharge of their legal liability towards the complainant when the transaction
with respect to the aforementioned plot could not materialized as per the agreed terms and
conditions. Hence, since all the cheqeus in question have been issued arising out of a
common cause of action, therefore a common legal demand notice was sent to all the
accused persons. On failure to pay the amount within a period of 15 days, the present
complaint has been filed arraying all the accused persons in the memo parties.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Rajini Chandra single complaint, and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors
MANU/AP/0744/2010.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2010, in Case titled as Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed
Babalal H.MANU/SC/0319/2010.
3. Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India in Criminal Appeal No. 963 of 2010.
4. Criminal Misc. No. M-27622 of 2012, in Case titled as Charashni Kumar Talwani
Vs. Malhotra Poultries; MANU/PH/3518/2013.
5. A. Adinarayana Reddy Vs. S. Vijayalakshmi and Anr Criminal Petition Number
5909 of 2023 passed by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka.
Apart from that perusal of the digital file reveals that GST certificate/any
other documents of accused no. 2 and accused no. 4 has not been filed alongwith the
complaint in order to ascertain the status of accused no. 1 and 3 respectively in the said
firms.
Let the GST certificate/any other documents of accused no. 2 and 4 be filed
on or before NDOH.
Put up for further clarifications and arguments on the point of summoning
on 12.03.2025.
(Parul Sharma)
(JMFC(NI Act) Digital court02)
NorthWest, Rohini
New Delhi/18.02.2025
-- 2 of 2 --