Supreme Court of India
Ravi Dhingra vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 December, 2024
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol
2024 INSC 1013
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 13251 of 2023)
Ravi Dhingra
…Appellant(s)
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
…Respondent(s)
With
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15081 of 2023)
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15131 of 2023)
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 15307 of 2023)
Criminal Appeal No. of 2024
(@ SLP (Crl.) No. 16214 of 2023)
JUDGMENT
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
Leave granted in all the captioned Special Leave
Petitions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Dr.
Naveen Rawal
Date: 2024.12.19
16:18:03 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No. 13251 of 2023
1. The captioned quintuplet appeals by special leave
arise from a common judgment dated 21.08.2023
respectively in Crl. M.C. Nos.5981 of 2022, 5982 of 2022,
5975 of 2022, 5980 of 2022 and 5965 of 2022, passed by
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi. As per the
impugned common judgment, the High Court dismissed
the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Cases filed by the
self-same appellant herein under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the
“Cr.P.C.”) seeking quashment of summoning orders in
five complaint case Nos. viz., 49307 of 2016, 49308 of
2016, 49309 of 2016, 49310 of 2016, and 48700 of 2016
instituted under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the “NI Act”) and further
proceedings arising from the said complaint cases as
well as to set aside orders by which his applications for
discharge, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New
Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in those
complaint cases. All the aforesaid complaint cases were
filed by the self-same complainant viz., M/s Pinnacle
Capital Solution Pvt. Ltd. which is the respondent No.2 in
all the captioned appeals.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the
captioned appeals are as under:
Page 2 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No. 13251 of 2023
The second respondent-company was engaged in
the business of rendering financial services in India as a
registered Non-Banking Financial Company (NBFC) only
and admittedly, the appellant was the authorised
signatory of the accused company, namely, M/s
Silverstar Fashions Private Limited that engaged in the
business of manufacturing and exporting ready-made
garments. The loan transaction(s) between the aforesaid
companies and the subsequent issuance of cheques and
their dishonour ultimately led to the filing of the
aforementioned complaint cases alleging commission of
offence under Section 138, NI Act. Since the parties in all
the above appeals are the same, for convenient sake,
hereafter in this judgment the accused-Ravi Dhingra is
referred to as the ‘appellant’ and the second-respondent
company viz., the complainant is referred to as the
‘respondent’.
3. In all those cases, on the respective complaints
filed by the self-same respondent, cognizance was
taken, and they were taken on file by the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi District, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi (for brevity ‘the Magistrate’).
In all the cases before the High Court, besides seeking
Page 3 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No. 13251 of 2023
quashment of the summoning orders, the appellant
herein has also challenged the orders dismissing the
application seeking discharge in all the said complaint
cases as also quashment of the aforesaid complaint cases
and all proceedings emanating therefrom.
4. As per the impugned common order dated
21.08.2023 the High Court declined to exercise the
power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and consequently,
dismissed the petitions qua the appellant. Hence, the
captioned appeals.
5. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
6. The crux of the contention is that the complaint
lacks the mandatorily required averment to maintain a
complaint for commission of offence under Section 138 of
the NI Act. To buttress the said contention, learned
Senior Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in
Ashok Shewakramani & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh
& Anr.1
7. The law enunciated in the decision in Ashok
Shewakramani’s case (supra) is that to maintain a
1
(2023) 8 SCC 473; 2023 INSC 692
Page 4 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No. 13251 of 2023
complaint and to frame a charge under Section 138 of the
NI Act, there must be a specific averment against the
person concerned that he was in-charge of, and
responsible for the company concerned in the matter of
conduct of its business. This position is now well settled
and is being followed with alacrity.
8. Taking note of the law thus settled by this Court, we
have carefully perused the complaints. Though, the
learned counsel appearing for the second-respondent in
all these cases, took pains to convince us that the
complaint concerned carried necessary averments
required statutorily to maintain them however, on
perusing the said complaints, we have no hesitation to
hold that the aforesaid mandatorily required averments
to attract an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act are
conspicuously absent in all the complaint(s). To make
the appellant to stand the trial, in such circumstances,
would be nothing but abuse of the process of the Court.
When that be the position, they are liable to be set aside
in the light of Ashok Shewakramani’s case (supra).
9. In the said circumstances, we are of the view that
appellant has made out a case warranting quashment of
the common order dated 21.08.2023 passed in Crl. M.C.
Nos. 5981 of 2022, 5982 of 2022, 5975 of 2022, 5980 of
Page 5 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No. 13251 of 2023
2022 and 5965 of 2022, passed by the High Court.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned common order
dated 21.08.2023 passed by the High Court in the
aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Cases. Consequently,
the appeals are allowed. Accordingly, the complaint
cases being 49307 of 2016, 49308 of 2016, 49309 of 2016,
49310 of 2016, and 48700 of 2016 on the files of the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and all further
proceedings and orders including the summoning
orders issued respectively in the said cases qua the
appellant stand quashed and set aside.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……………………, J.
(C.T. Ravikumar)
……………………, J.
(Sanjay Karol)
New Delhi;
December 19, 2024
Page 6 of 6
SLP (Crl.) No. 13251 of 2023