Mahinder Sharma vs Rajiv Bhatnagar & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 1836 Del

$~47
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     CRL.M.C. 950/2012

%            Judgment delivered on: 16th March, 2012


      MAHINDER SHARMA                               ..... Petitioner
                  Through:            Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
                                      Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Ms. Hema
                                      Sahu, Mr. Rishabh Sahu and
                                      Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocates
                     versus

      RAJIV BHATNAGAR & ANR               ..... Respondents
                   Through: Mr. Subhash Gulati, Advocate for
                            respondent No.1
                            Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the
                            State/R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

CRL. M.A. No.3321/2012 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. CRL. M.C. No.950/2012

1. Notice issued.

2. Learned counsel Mr. Subhash Gulati, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.

3. Learned APP accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant

petition is taken up today for final disposal. 5 Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has sought to quash/set aside the judgment/order dated 21.02.2012 passed by learned ACMM, Saket Courts, Delhi in CCNo. 256/1.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 is Signatory on the cheque in question and has been filing various complaints against the petitioner. In this manner, he has been misleading the police as well as the Courts just to avoid his impleadment as an accused.

7 Learned counsel further submits, at this stage, that they do not dispute if the investigation is carried out by Delhi Police or Jalandhar Police, however, the Economic Offence Wingh, Delhi (in short "EOW") has already been directed to inquire/investigate the matter and rgister a case, if required. Therefore, he is only praying that since, the respondent No.1 is signatory to the said cheque, therefore, the EOW should also investigate the role of the respondent no.1.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that submission made by Ld. counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner to the extent that if after investigation respondent No. 1 is found guilty of committing of any offence then he has no objection if a case is registered against him also.

9. In the circumstances, without disturbing the order passed by learned ACMM, Saket Courts, Delhi, I further direct EOW to investigate the matter and also investigate the role of respondent No.1, if found involved in the offence, action shall be taken against him as per Law.

10. No further order is required.

11. I further direct, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner without the permission of the Trial Court.

12. Crl. M.C. 950/2012 stands disposed of accordingly. CRL. M.A. 3323/2012 (Application for calling of records) In view of the above orders the present application stands disposed of.

Crl.M.A.3322/2012(stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

SURESH KAIT, J

MARCH 16, 2012 nn