High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/16128/2025dismissed

Capacite Infraproject Ltd And ANR v. Ms Neo Techno Company

2026-04-08Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth9 pages

!""#$% & '& ( &&&&&&)!)!#$* +*,-, ./

&&&&&&,0#$"$), % 1(&// +//

$$$$ / +// 2& % &'( #) '*'+ , -

) !.

) /* '*'0 1- ) . ! ! 2 3 4 5 % ! 6 ,

*7 *+ '*'0

8 9%*"

%+( ) 2

*7 *+ '*'0

- ) . ! "

%* %% '*'&

*+ *0 '*'& ;<

*+ *0 '*'&

*0 %' '*'& 2

; 7=%+(0(-9

> >"

8 8

& 6

+ <

+ *0 %' '*'& ". That the complaint case was filed against the petitioner on dishonor of cheque which was issued in discharge of liability by the petitioner. The petitioner is bound to comply with the provisions of MOU as the same was agreed by the petitioner when the respondent filed

commercial civil suit under section 12A of commercial court act and petitioner violated the samé.

That there were admitted liability by the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 69,13,848/* in the civil suit and thereafter the matter was settled as per MOU. There was an specific condition that incase the cheque mentioned in MOU's dishonored, the MOU shall be void and respondent shall forfeit the payment and the petitioner shall be bound to make payment of entire due amount as per certified invoices therefore the cheque mentioned in the complaint dishonored. Inspite of notice under section 138 NI Act, the petitioner/accused failed to make the payment of the dishonored cheque and hence offence under section 138 NI Act made out. It is submitted that the payment was made after filing the complaint case and the respondent cannot be compelled to settle the matter only on the basis of the payment. Even though the honble supreme court of India in Raj Reddy Kallem Vs State of Haryana held that mere repayment of the amount cannot mean that the accused person is absolved from the criminal liability under section 138 NI Act. it is also submitted that some other cheque was also dishonored."

< '= %% '*'&

5 6 ! 6

) 2

; %/ :

' / 3

! 5 6 ! 6 A '= %% '*'& " Present: Sh. Vishwendra Verma(through VC), Advocate for the complainant Sh. Manish Sharma, Advocate for the accused.

The learned counsel on behalf of the accused has appeared and has submitted before the Court that on 03.04.2025, the Hon'ble High Court has directed the complainant to give statement before the Court with respect to the fact that before issuance of cheque dated 17.08.2023, the entire payment of the cheque has been received by the complainant from the accused. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant is not giving statement as he was supposed to be given in compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court.

On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the complainant has submitted before the Court that the Court cannot pressurize the complainant to give any specific statement. The complainant has also submitted that he is not required to give any such statement.

I have heard the submissions of both the parties. 4.

Perusal of the order dated 03.04.2025 shows that as per the Order of Hon'ble High Court, the complainant was required to depose on the fact that whether the complete cheque amount has been paid by the accused to the complainant prior to the issuance of summoning order dated 06.03.2024. However, the complainant has refused to make

such statement with respect to the specific fact that as to whether prior to the issuance of the summoning order dated 06.03.2024 he had received entire payment of cheque*in* question. At this stage, complainant has submitted that he is ready to give statement with his consent. Statement in this regard has also been recorded separately. Complainant has submitted that he has not received any payment for the cheque*in*question within 15 days of the cheque dishonored. He had further stated that the settlement deed became void as the accused violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. He had further stated that the payment was not released of the cheque amount within 15 days and the amount which released in January was a part of outstanding balance payment as mentioned in the agreement i.e. more than 69,00,000/*. He had further stated that the accused is liable to make payment of the total amount and cheque amount shall be adjusted towards the liability. 5.

On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the accused has submitted before the Court that he has evidence to prove that an amount of cheque*in*question has already been received by the complainant prior to the date of summoning order. Further, learned counsel on behalf of both the parties has submitted before the court that the present case is pending before Hon'ble High Court for submission of affidavit of complainant on 05.12.2025. Learned counsels have sought adjournment after 05.12.2025. In the interest of justice, case is adjourned to 20.12.2025 for consideration." ( ?

*/ *+ '*'7

5 6 ! 6 ! "

The complainant had mentioned in his statement that he had not received the payment in lieu of the cheque within 15 days of the dishonour of the cheque. He had further mentioned that there was a settlement deed between the complainant and the accused. However, the accused had violated the terms of the said settlement. Further the complainant has also tendered his affidavit Annexure IV dated 27.02.2026. It was also mentioned by the complainant that the amount which was released by the accused was a part payment on the outstanding balance amount as mentioned in the agreement which was more than Rs. 69,00,000/*. The complainant had also mentioned that the accused is liable to make payment of the total amount and the cheque amount shall be adjusted towards the liability. .

On the other hand, the accused had submitted before the Court that he has evidence to prove that the amount of cheque*in*question has already been paid to the complainant prior to the date of the summoning order. It is pertinent to note that as per the version of the complainant, the accused had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement which was executed between the complainant and the accused. Perusal of the case file shows the copy of the agreement between the complainant and the accused has been placed upon file as Ex.C1.

As per the settlement terms of the agreement Annexure I, it was agreed between the parties that the accused will make full and final payment with respect to the work orders for the amount of Rs. 53.81.260/* (the settlement amount). The said payment was to be paid in three installments as mentioned in para no.2 of the settlement agreement. Further, the amount of cheque*in*question i.e Rs. 17,26,086/* is one of the installments of the settlement amount.

3 As per the version of the complainant, he had received part payment, however, he had not received the payment of cheque*in*question. On the other hand, the accused had mentioned that he has evidence to prove that he had already paid the amount of cheque*in*question prior to the date of the summoning order.

However, at this stage, there is no evidence on the case file which proves the fact that the complainant has received the amount of cheque*in*question. Further, in order to decide the fact that the complainant had received the amount of cheque*in*question the same can only be decided after the completion of trial.

The report along*with order of the Link Court dated 29.11.2025 as Annexure*ll as well as the statement of the complainant in original as Annexure * Ill and original statement along with affidavit of complainant namely Krishanu Mukhopadhyay, AR of M/S Neo Techno Co. as Annexure IV are hereby sent to Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court for kind perusal."

%* ?

> *( */ '*'+

; &+(%'7*-9

, @

< >-

)

> ,

%% 3 <

> *( */ '*'+

9 :

*/ *+ '*'7

! ,

, ,

4 .

# $ % &''

)

* # $

"" +, -"" # .% /&

(

" "

"% /

& 8

;

/ +// 0*!5 2

:-;

;