Delhi High Court
Chatter Sain vs Raghav Bansal on 20 January, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl.M.C. No. 215/2012
Date of Decision: 20.01.2012
CHATTER SAIN ...... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. A.S. Chaudhary, Advocate
Versus
RAGHAV BANSAL ...... RESPODNENT
Through: Nemo
And
Crl.M.C. No. 216/2012
CHATTER SAIN ...... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. A.S. Chaudhary, Advocate
Versus
RAGHAV BANSAL ...... RESPODNENT
Through: Nemo
And
+ Crl.M.C. No. 217/2012
CHATTER SAIN ...... PETITIONER
Through: Mr. A.S. Chaudhary, Advocate
Versus
RAGHAV BANSAL ...... RESPODNENT
Through : Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petitions are filed under Section 482 CrPC assailing the
order of ASJ whereby the revision petition filed against the order of M.M.
dated 27.4.2011 framing notice under Section 251 CrPC was dismissed. The
relief is sought for quashing of the proceedings pending before the M.M.
under Section 138, N.I.Act as also the order of M.M. under Section 82 CrPC
declaring the petitioner as Proclaimed Offender.
2. At the outset, it may be noted that the copy of the impugned order of
ASJ whereby the criminal revision petition was dismissed is not placed on
record and no reason has been given for so. The petitions as such are
apparently not maintainable on this short ground. However, from the
averments made in the petitions, it appears that the said revision petition
against the order of MM framing notice under Section 251 CrPC in respect
of offence under Section 138/142 N.I.Act was dismissed being not
maintainable. The order of the M.M. framing notice under Section 251
CrPC has been assailed on various grounds. Firstly, it is averred that the
complainant failed to prove that he is the proprietor of the firm M/s.
Resoursys. In this regard, the submission was that the complaint was filed
by complainant Raghav Bansal, who was neither the payee nor holder in due
course of the cheque in question. It was submitted that the payee was M/s.
Resoursys and not the complainant and so, the complaints filed by the
Raghav Bansal were not maintainable. This plea of the counsel for the
petitioner is entirely misconceived and baseless. The complaints were filed
by Raghav Bansal as proprietor of M/s. Resoursys. He being the proprietor
of the firm in whose favour the cheque in question was issued, was the only
competent person to file the complaint being its proprietor.
3. It was further contended that the complainants had not shown his
financial capacity and had no source of income. This was again entirely
misconceived and untenable plea that was sought to be taken by the
petitioner. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be seen that the
cheques in question were issued by the petitioner to the complainant in
discharge of his liability and there existed a presumption against him under
Section 139 of NI Act and such a plea was not available in such cases.
4. It was next contended that the cheques in question were issued only
as a security and not towards the discharge of debt or liability. It may be
noted that in reply to one of the questions put to the petitioner while framing
notice under Section 251 CrPC, the petitioner had stated as under:
"I plead not guilty and claim trial. The impugned cheque had been
issued by me although the date mentioned on the cheque was not written
by me. I had purchased UPS from the complainant Raghav Bansal. I
had to make payment to the complainant against the said purchase. I
issued the impugned cheque in lieu of said purchase. I asked the
complainant not to submit the same for encashment since I did not have
appropriate balance in my bank account. I did not have balance since
the parties to whom I had further sold the UPS had fled away without
making payment to me. On receipt of information about dishonour of the
impugned chqeue, I contacted the complainant and asked him why he had
submitted the cheque for encashment to the bank but he did not give any
cogent reason. Thereafter, I made a payment of around Rs. 25,000/- to
the complainant but I did not have any proof of such payment".
5. In view of the above, the plea that was taken with regard to the
security was entirely false and concocted.
6. It was next submitted that no legal notice was given to the petitioner.
The complainant has specifically averred in the complaint that legal notice
of demand was got issued to the petitioner through courier dated 9.11.2009
and UPC dated 10.11.2009 and that notice sent through UPC was duly
served upon the petitioner and it was never received back. The service was
also stated to have been effected through courier. In this regard, a frivolous
plea was sought to be taken by the petitioner that the said courier agency
was not authorized. In any case, this was the issue that was triable by way
of evidence.
7. It was next contended that Delhi Court at Karkardooma Courts have
no jurisdiction to try the complaints. This plea is also misconceived.
Though this was entirely a triable issue, but from the material available on
record, it can be seen that the transaction between the parties took place at
Delhi, cheques in question were issued at Delhi, they were deposited for
encashment in bank at Delhi and that drawee bank of the petitioner was
stated to be at Delhi. Thus, Delhi Court apparently had territorial
jurisdiction in this matter.
8. With regard to the last submission of the petitioner that the
proceedings under Section 82 CrPC were wrongly initiated against him by
the M.M., no infirmity or illegality has been pointed out by the learned
counsel. I do not see any impropriety or illegality in such proceedings
initiated by the M.M.
9. In view the discussion above, there is no merit in any of the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitions
being not maintainable are accordingly dismissed in limini.
M.L. MEHTA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 20, 2012
akb
