In CRL. M.C. 948/2019 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court refuses to quash complaint against Shalini Securities Private Limited & Ex-Director for dishonoured cheques; Imposes cost of Rs. 25,000
Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain [14-09-2023]

Read Order: Shalini Securities Private Limited & Anr V. Lokesh Thakkar & Anr

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 29, 2023: The Delhi High Court has refused to quash a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) against Shalini Securities Private Limited (petitioner) and its ex-director for issuing cheques after its director's resignation. The Court emphasized that the issues raised in the present complaint necessitated evidence and cannot be decided through the present petitions.

The brief issue involved in the present case was that Lokesh Thakkar (respondent herein) contended that he and Amandeep Singh (ex-director of Shalini Securities Private Limited) were involved in the real estate business. Amandeep Singh, persuaded Lokesh Thakkar to enter into financial arrangements with them, become a business partner, and invest in M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited. Amandeep Singh had promised Lokesh Thakkar significant gains through this investment. Over the period from 2009 to 2017, Lokesh Thakkar had transferred a total of Rs. 10 crores and 40 lakhs to Amandeep Singh, both in cash and through bank transfers. However, In July 2017, Lokesh Thakkar encountered difficulties in paying the interest on the loans he had acquired from the market, which he had invested in Amandeep Singh's project. As a result, Lokesh Thakkar approached Amandeep Singh to claim his share of the profits. In an attempt to settle the matter, Amandeep Singh provided Lokesh Thakkar with 11 post-dated cheques, each valued at Rs. 50 lakhs, drawn from the account of M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited. However, these cheques were dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient funds. Subsequently, Lokesh Thakkar filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited and Amandeep Singh, feeling aggrieved by the situation, filed the present petition seeking the quashing of the complaint in question.

The single-judge bench of Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed that it was evident from the record that Amandeep Singh had resigned as a Director from M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited in the year 2012. This occurred well before the issuance of the disputed cheques. After tendering his resignation to M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited, Amandeep Singh was no longer a person responsible for the affairs of the company.

However, the bench took note of the fact that Lokesh Thakkar had alleged that the disputed cheques were delivered/handed over to him by Amandeep Singh. In response to this, the bench stated that it was the responsibility of Amandeep Singh to provide an explanation regarding how he came into possession of these cheques from the account of M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited, especially after his resignation as Director. Furthermore, upon examination of the cheques in question, it was evident that they were issued from the account held on behalf of M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited and were signed by Amandeep Singh. The burden of proving how these cheques came into Amandeep Singh's possession and under what circumstances they were issued in favour of Lokesh Thakkar rested on M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited and Amandeep Singh. The bench said that these issues cannot be conclusively decided without the presentation of evidence during the proceedings.

Therefore, the bench concluded that, at this stage, M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited and Amandeep Singh should not be allowed to take advantage of their actions in issuing the disputed cheques in favour of Lokesh Thakkar. Lokesh Thakkar appeared to be the holder of the cheques in question and was entitled to the presumption under Section 139 of NI Act. It was the responsibility of M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited to establish, through the presentation of a plausible defence, that the cheques in question were not issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt and were not valid instruments under the law.

As a result, the present petitions were dismissed, and a cost of Rs. 25,000 was imposed on each of M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited and Amandeep Singh. This cost was to be paid to Lokesh Thakkar before the trial court on the next date of hearing.