Sh. Pawan Gupta vs. Mahaveer Aqua Private Limited, Through Its Authorized Representative

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Pawan Gupta, sought to quash a summoning order dated May 24, 2019, and subsequent proceedings in a complaint case filed by Mahaveer Aqua Private Limited. The respondent alleged that the petitioner, representing himself as the proprietor of M/s Nice Life Care Enterprises, purchased goods worth Rs. 12,77,126/-. The petitioner allegedly issued three cheques totaling Rs. 7,72,000/- towards part payment, which subsequently dishonored due to "Payment Stopped by the Drawer" and "Funds Insufficient." A legal notice was issued, and upon failure to pay, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) was filed. The petitioner contended he was neither the proprietor nor the authorized signatory of the firm and presented GST registration details showing Mr. Deepak Gupta as the proprietor.

Held

The Court held that there was no material on record to establish that the petitioner was the proprietor of M/s Nice Life Care Enterprises or that he was the signatory of the cheques. The GST registration printouts clearly indicated that the firm was registered in the name of Mr. Deepak Gupta. The Court noted that the complaint itself did not claim the cheques were issued from the petitioner's account but from the firm's account. In the absence of material linking the petitioner to the firm or the cheques, forcing him to stand trial on unsubstantiated averments would constitute an abuse of the process of law. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's observations in *S.P. Mani & Mohan Dairy v. Snehlata Elangovan* regarding the quashing of process when unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence is presented. Consequently, the summoning order and the complaint against the petitioner were quashed. The issue regarding Section 202 CrPC was not explicitly addressed as the primary issue of the petitioner's non-involvement was decided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Trial Court erred in passing the summoning order without appreciating the facts and applying the law, specifically concerning the petitioner's alleged proprietorship of M/s Nice Life Care Enterprises and signatory status of the cheques, thereby violating Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? 2. Whether the Trial Court erred in not conducting the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before issuing summons, given the petitioner's residence potentially being outside the court's jurisdiction? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that he is neither the proprietor nor the authorized signatory of M/s Nice Life Care Enterprises, as evidenced by GST registration details showing Mr. Deepak Gupta as the proprietor. He claimed no liability accrues to him as the bank account from which the cheques were allegedly issued is not in his name, thus failing a basic requisite of Section 138 NI Act. Reliance was placed on *Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi*. The petitioner also argued that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 CrPC was not conducted. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner's presented facts are disputed. They argued that the petitioner received the legal notice but did not reply, making the complaint averments bona fide. The burden to prove otherwise shifts to the petitioner during trial, not in a Section 482 petition.