Delhi High Court
Rathi Ispat Ltd vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 7 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 07, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 5140/2014 & Crl.M.A. 17576/2014
RATHI ISPAT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Tripathi,
Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Karan Singh, Additional Public
Prosecutor for respondent-State
Ms. Seema Gupta, Advocate for
respondent No.2-Indian Bank
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
Petitioner is an accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and Notice under Section 251 of
Cr.P.C. has been framed against petitioner and his co-accused on 16th
July, 2013. Thereafter, petitioner had filed an application under Section
145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was allowed by
trial court vide order of 1st August, 2013 and the case was listed for
complainant's evidence.
Learned counsel for petitioner had sought an adjournment for
CRL.M.C. 5140/2014 Page 1
cross-examination of the authorised representative of respondent No.2-
complainant and thereafter, had filed an application for transfer of the
case to the court of competent territorial jurisdiction while relying upon
Apex Court's decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of
Maharashtra & Anr. 2014 (9) SCALE 97. Trial court as well as
revisional court has declined to transfer the case under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the ground that it has gone beyond
the stage of Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents No.3 to 9
are pro forma parties as they are co-accused and no relief is claimed
against them in this petition.
At the hearing of this petition, learned counsel for petitioner had
drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.53 (20) of decision in
Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) and it was submitted that since the recording
of the evidence has not yet begun, therefore, the instant complaint case
ought to be transferred to the court having the territorial jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for contesting respondent No.2 supports the
impugned orders and submits that after allowing of petitioner's
application under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, recording of evidence had begun and on the request of petitioner
only, the cross-examination of complainant's authorized representative
was deferred and so, the instant case is squarely covered by the Apex
Court's decision in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) and there is no substance
in this petition.
After having heard both the sides and on perusal of the impugned
orders, the material on record and the decision cited, it becomes amply
CRL.M.C. 5140/2014 Page 2
clear from the trial court's order of 6th September, 2014 that the
authorized representative of respondent-complainant was tendered for
cross-examination but petitioner's counsel had sought deferment on the
ground that he had applied for the certified copy of the evidence and so, it
cannot be said that the commencement of the evidence has not begun.
In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no patent illegality
or infirmity in the orders of the courts below as the dictum of the Apex
Court in Dashrath Rupsingh (supra) has been correctly applied to the
instant case.
This petition and the application are accordingly dismissed while
not commenting upon the merits of this case lest it may prejudice either
side at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 07, 2015
s
CRL.M.C. 5140/2014 Page 3
