The Delhi High Court allowed a petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the Order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court observed that in their application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act, should also have disclosed proper reasons for seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the Order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, observing that petitioner no.1 failed to disclose any particular or specific defence in his favour to allow the petitioner no. 1 to cross-examine the Complainant, especially when the petitioner no. 1 has admitted his signature on the cheque in question. The learned Trial Court further held that mere averment that the cheque was issued for the purpose of security, without any specific averment or fact is not sufficient to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent/Complainant.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the Order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Learned Trial Court while framing the notice against Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 1 has taken a categorical defence that the cheques in question were issued as security and, were given blank. She submits that for proving the said defence, the cross-examination of the respondent is essential.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in the application filed under Section 145(2) of the NI Act, petitioner no. 1 has not disclosed any reason for cross-examining the respondent. He submitted that, therefore, the Impugned Order has rightly been passed by the learned Trial Court.
The Court noted that in the application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act filed by petitioner no.1, no reason has been given by petitioner no. 1 for cross-examining the respondent, and only a vague averment has been made. It does not indicate as to why the petitioner No. 1 wishes to cross-examine the respondent. However, at the same time, the defence of petitioner no. 1 is evident from the Order dated 29.02.2020
The Court observed that for a fair and proper adjudication of the complaint case filed by the respondent, an opportunity has to be granted to the petitioners to cross-examine the respondent. At the same time, the Court remarked that the petitioners, in their application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act, should also have disclosed proper reasons for seeking an opportunity to cross-examine the Complainant.
The Decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court, allowing the petition, held that the impugned order dated 02.12.2021 cannot be sustained and is set aside.
Case Title: Rakesh Roy & Anr. v Oxford University Press India
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Navin Chawla
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 349/2022 & CRL.M.A. 1521/2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Ms. Rashi Jain
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. Anupam Lal Das
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
