Delhi High Court
Sachin Suneja vs State & Ors. on 21 December, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: December 07, 2010
Date of Order: December 21, 2010
+ Crl. MC No.3161/2010
% 21.12.2010
Sachin Suneja ...Petitioner
Versus
State & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsels:
Mr. Maninder Singh for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has assailed an order
dated 3rd September 2010 whereby an application under Section 263(g) Cr.P.C of the
petitioner was dismissed He has also sought quashing of the criminal complaint under
Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act made by the complainant.
2. After summoning order of learned MM, the petitioner on a complaint of the
respondent/ complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour
of cheque, the petitioner made an application under Section 263(g) of Cr.P.C stating
therein that the payment of the cheque was stopped by him and it was not dishonoured
on account of insufficiency of funds. The cheques in question were issued as a security
and were misused by the complainant. The other defence taken was that the notice
issued by the complainant was beyond the period of limitation. The learned trial court
Crl.MC 3161/2010 Page 1 Of 2
considered the application of the petitioner and found that the evidence in the case was
going on and the matter was listed for cross examination of witnesses. As far as serving
of legal notice within the statutory period was concerned, the trial court observed that the
debit advice was dated 31st October 2009 and the legal notice was served on 30th
November 2009. Thus, the notice was absolutely within the period of limitation and he
listed the case for P.E.
3. Where a person makes an application under Section 263(g) disclosing his
defence, he can ask the trial court to decide his application on merits after making a
statement that he does not want to cross examine the witness and does not want to
produce defence, evidence already on record given by complainant be considered to
decide the case. Where an accused goes for recalling the witnesses on the basis of his
defence, he cannot simultaneously take a plea that the complaint should be dismissed
on the basis of his defence. Only where accused makes a statement that he has not to
examine any witness and he was prepared to argue the case on the basis of documents
on record, the trial court has to finally dispose of the complaint under Section 138 of NI
Act in a summarily manner by recording this statement of the accused. Where an
accused does not make a statement about his accepting the facts and argue the matter
only on the basis of documents, he cannot seek dismissal of the complaint on the basis
of his defence.
4. I find no merits in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with no orders to
costs.
December 21, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd
Crl.MC 3161/2010 Page 2 Of 2
