7', 32 $- * F( INTHEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDEI,HI clu,.M.C .273812010 SURI SLINNY TI{AVEL & ORS ""' Petitioners Thlough: Mr.Surinder Anand, Adv' ' versus KAILASI.I KATYAL & ANR 'fhrough: Nemo. COII.AM: HON'I}LE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA ..... Respondents ORDER 25.08.20L0 CrL M.A. No. 14105/20 10 lixcmption allorved, subject to all just cxceptions' CrL. Nt.c-Ns2Z3-V2010 'l'hc pctitiolcrs herein are facing prosecution in a cornplaint under Section 138 of thc Ncgotiablc Instrurncnt Ac1, 1881. This cornplaint r'vas filed in the ycar lggg. 'fhe petitioners have horvevcr not rnentioned thc date on which thcy r'vcrc sunrnoled to appcar before the trial court. '-fhe present petition for quashing of the cornplaint was filccl on 16tl'August, 2010. Learnc6 counscl for thc petitioners has submitted that thc checluc in qucstion rvas issuccl in 1avour of IWs. Kailash lnternational and, thcre'fore, Mr. Kailash Katyal is not cntitlcd to file the prcsent cornplaint. In the complaint Mr.Kailash .I(atyal has describcd hirnsclf, as the sole proprietor of N{/s. Kailash International' 'I'he contcntion of thc lcarncd counsel fior thc pctitioncrs, thcrcfore, has no tncrit' It was ncxt contended that thcre was no agreemenl bctr,veen the respondent ancl thc cornplzrinant. It is not thc requirement that therc should bc a writtcn "n, { i Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified r'i d 2- r{ agrcclnent between the parties. Oral agreement is a tnatter of evidcnce' As per the cornplainant, hc r.vas engaged in the business of tours and travels and was also a forcign exchangc dcaler duly licensecl under the Foreign Exchange I{cgulation Act, lgl3. It is allegcd that the accusod petitioner No.1 firrn M/s. Suri Sunny Travels was a rcgular business customer of the cornplainant and r.vas liable to pay charges. likc cornmission ctc. and accordingly, a cheque of Rs.30,000/- dated 20tl' August, 1998 was issuc.d by thc petitioner No.I firm. The said cheque when presented was clishonourcd with the remark'payrnent stop by the drawer'. Under Section 139 of thc Negoliable Ilstrunrcnt Act, the presumption, unless contrary is proved, is that thc holder of the chcque had received the cheque in wholc or in part for discharge of thc dcbt or other liabilitY. It was lastly contendcd that no notice was issued to Ms.Narinder Kaur and shc has bccn wrongly irnpleaded as an accused being a partner of the firrn M/s. Suri Sunny I'ravels. Notice, it is admitted, was issued to the partnership finn iWs. Suri Sr.rnny 'fravcls. lhc petitioners havc not filed the pre-summoning evidcnce or copy of the surnmoning order. 'Ihe present stage of the proceedings, which r'vcre initiated in thc year 1999, is not statcd in the petition. I atn, thcrefore, not inclined to issue notice. 'I'hc pctition is disrnissed in lirnine. Observations tnade above arc fcr thc disposal of thc present petition and will not be binding on the trial court. 4- )lt-- / -' (( SANJIV KTIANNA, J. ' AUGUST 25,20t0 J/VKITY //\ -*-? t { s_