Delhi High Court
Virender Singh vs Deepak Bhatia on 8 April, 2011
Author: G.P. Mittal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 13th March, 2013
Pronounced on: 8th April, 2013
+ CRL.L.P. 491/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 492/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 493/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 1 of 15
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 494/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 495/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 496/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 2 of 15
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 497/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 498/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 499/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 3 of 15
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 500/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 501/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 502/2011
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 4 of 15
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 503/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 504/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 5 of 15
+ CRL.L.P. 505/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 506/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 507/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 6 of 15
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 508/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 509/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 510/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 7 of 15
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 511/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
+ CRL.L.P. 512/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
Crl. L.P. Nos.491-513/2011 Page 8 of 15
+ CRL.L.P. 513/2011
VIRENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr.Harish
Sharma & Mr.Manoj Sehgal, Advocates
versus
DEEPAK BHATIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr.Randhir Jain, Mr.Dhananjai Jain &
Ms.Ruchika Jain, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Leave Petitions be registered as Criminal Appeals
No.461/2013 - 483/2013.
3. These Appeals arise out of 23 separate judgments of even date whereby
23 complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881(the Act) were dismissed by the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate(MM) primarily on the ground that the Petitioner was in the
business of advancing loan; he did not possess any money lending licence
and thus the complaint was barred under Section 3 of the Punjab
Registration of Money-lender's Act, 1938 (the Act of 1938). The learned
MM opined that although the cheques were issued in discharge of
liability or debt, yet in view of the provisions of the Act of 1938, the
debts were legally not recoverable. Thus, the learned M.M. dismissed the
complaints and acquitted the Respondent.
4. In the 23 complaint cases, various cheques have been issued which are
extracted hereunder:
Crl.L.P. No. Cheque No. Date of Cheque Amount(in `)
491/2011 000048 10.12.2008 10,000/-
000047 14.12.2008 1,00,000/-
002375 01.09.2008 42,000/-
492/2011 000001 09.08.2008 30,000/-
000002 08.09.2008 18,000/-
000003 10.09.2008 18,000/-
493/2011 002423 24.09.2008 44,000/-
007582 24.09.2008 24,000/-
120184 26.11.2008 6,667/-
494/2011 000032 14.11.2008 7,500/-
000050 26.12.2008 10,000/-
495/2011 121334 06.01.2009 10,000/-
121335 10.01.2009 10,000/-
121336 14.01.2009 10,000/-
121340 02.01.2009 1,00,000/-
207659 05.10.2008 26,700/-
496/2011 000039 08.11.2008 1,00,000/-
000041 02.12.2008 10,000/-
000049 18.10.2008 10,000/-
497/2011 000033 21.11.2008 7,500/-
000034 28.11.2008 7,500/-
000035 11.11.2008 7,500/-
000036 26.11.2008 7,500/-
498/2011 002419 16.09.2008 12,000/-
499/2011 000044 21.11.2008 1,00,000/-
000045 28.11.2008 1,00,000/-
000046 07.12.2008 1,00,000/-
500/2011 007583 25.09.2008 24,000/-
007584 28.09.2008 48,000/-
007585 27.09.2008 30,000/-
501/2011 002412 04.09.2008 40,000/-
002413 06.09.2008 40,000/-
002411 05.09.2008 40,000/-
502/2011 000007 12.09.2008 48,000/-
000008 13.09.2008 12,000/-
000009 17.09.2008 12,000/-
503/2011 207697 15.12.2008 10,000/-
207698 25.12.2008 10,000/-
007581 26.11.2008 36,000/-
504/2011 000004 09.09.2008 48,000/-
000004 10.09.2008 48,000/-
000004 11.09.2008 36,000/-
505/2011 000025 03.10.2008 7,500/-
000042 07.11.2008 1,00,000/-
000043 14.11.2008 1,00,000/-
506/2011 002424 25.09.2008 40,000/-
207677 24.10.2008 16,500/-
207696 28.12.2008 10,000/-
507/2011 000018 28.10.2008 7,500/-
000026 11.10.2008 7,500/-
000027 20.10.2008 7,500/-
000037 20.11.2008 7,500/-
508/2011 000010 18.09.2008 18,000/-
000012 25.10.2008 11,000/-
000014 26.10.2008 14,000/-
509/2011 002418 15.09.2008 12,000/-
002422 23.09.2008 40,000/-
002420 19.09.2008 24,000/-
510/2011 007591 20.09.2008 10,000/-
007593 03.10.2008 40,000/-
007594 02.10.2008 40,500/-
511/2011 007586 28.09.2008 30,000/-
007587 09.09.2008 42,000/-
007588 01.10.2008 30,000/-
512/2011 000019 30.10.2008 30,000/-
000021 03.11.2008 16,500/-
000023 08.10.2008 1,00,000/-
513/2011 007595 01.10.2008 40,000/-
216765 04.10.2008 21,000/-
216776 11.10.2008 10,500/-
008778 26.09.2008 24,000/-
5. To analyse whether the complaints under Section 138 were barred under
the provisions of the Act, it will be apposite to extract the provisions of
Section 3 of the Act of 1938, which reads as under:
"3. Suits and applications by money-lenders barred, unless
money-lender is registered and licensed. Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other enactment for the time
being in force, a suit by a money-lender for the recovery of a
loan, or an application by a money-lender for the execution
of a decree relating to a loan, shall after the commencement
of this act, be dismissed, unless the money-lender-
(a) at the time of the institution of the suit or presentation of
the application for execution; or
(b) at the time of decreeing the suit or deciding the
application for execution-
(i) is registered; and
(ii) holds a valid licence, in such form and manner as may
be prescribed; or
(iii) holds a certificate from a Commissioner granted under
section 11, specifying the loan in respect of which the suit is
instituted, or the decree in respect of which the application
for execution is presented; or
(iv) if he is not a registered and licensed money-lender,
satisfies the Court that he has applied to the Collector to be
registered and licensed and that such application is
pending; provided that in such a case, the suit or application
shall not be finally disposed of until the application of the
money-lender for registration and grant of license pending
before the Collector is finally disposed of."
6. Thus, Section 3 of the Act of 1938 starts with a non-obstante clause and
makes the filing of any Suit or any Application for recovery of loan or
execution of a decree relating to a loan by a money lender to be not
maintainable unless the money lender is registered under the Act and
possessed a licence for the same.
7. The loan as defined in Section 2(8) of the Act of 1938 specifically
excludes an advance made on the basis of a negotiable instrument as
defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, other than a promissory
note. The instant cases relate to an advance made by the Petitioner to the
Respondent on the basis of the cheque which admittedly is a negotiable
instrument. Thus, the bar of Section 3 of the Act of 1938 is not attracted
to a loan given on the basis of a negotiable instrument, like a cheque. I
am supported in this view by a judgment of the Supreme Court in
Gajanan & Ors. v. Seth Brindaban, 1971(1) SCR 657. Thus, the learned
MM fell into error in dismissing the complaints and acquitting the
Respondent solely on the ground that the complaint was barred under the
provisions of the Act of 1938.
8. The impugned orders, therefore, cannot be sustained; the same are
accordingly set aside.
9. The cases are remanded back to the Court of MM concerned for its
decision in accordance with law.
10. Parties are directed to appear before the learned MM concerned on
30.04.2013.
11. Trial Court record be returned immediately.
12. A copy of the order be transmitted to the Trial Court.
13. Pending Applications stand disposed of.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
APRIL 08, 2013
pst
