Micky Kalra vs State & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 1041 Del

$~8
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  Date of Decision: February 04, 2015

+     CRL.M.C. 4026/2013 & Crl. M.A. No.14387/2013
      MICKY KALRA                                         ..... Petitioner
                         Through:      Mr. K. Kaushik, Advocate

                         versus

      STATE & ANR.                                        ..... Respondent
                         Through:      Mr. Karan Singh, Additional
                                       Public Prosecutor for State

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                         JUDGMENT

% (ORAL)

In proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, respondent-complainant's application under Section 311 Cr. P. C has been allowed by the trial court and the said order has been affirmed by the Revisional Court while noting that witnesses sought to be summoned are from different banks and one witness is from Economic Offences Wing to prove FIR No. 9/2008.

At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had relied upon Single Bench decision of Bombay High Court reported in R.N. Kakkar Vs. Hanif Gafoor Naviwala & Others 1996 CRL. L. J. 365 to submit that the complainant cannot be allowed to fill in the lacuna by way of application under Section 311 Cr. P.C. as complainant has already led the

Crl.M.C.No.4026/2013 Page 1 evidence.

Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the material on record and the decision cited, I find that to explain the source of the loan amount, the deposition of these witnesses is essential for the just decision of this case. Merely because, there is no reference about the source of the loan in the complaint, would not provide a ground for refusal of the application under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C. The reliance placed upon the decision in R.N.Kakkar (supra) is of no avail, as the instant case is not the one wherein lacuna is sought to be filled up as the case is still at the stage of complainant's evidence before the trial court.

Finding no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, this petition and the application are dismissed while not commenting on merits, lest it may prejudice either side before trial court.

                                                           (SUNIL GAUR)
                                                              JUDGE
FEBRUARY 04, 2015
rs




Crl.M.C.No.4026/2013                                                    Page 2