Delhi High Court
Vikram Singh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 21 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decided on: 21st September, 2016
+ CRL.M.C. 3478/2016
VIKRAM SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. Mrinal Beri, Adv.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP
with SI Shri Bhagwan, PS Neb
Sarai.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Crl.MA 14708/2016
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.C. 3478/2016
1. The case of the petitioner is that he gave a friendly loan to respondent
No.2 for `3 lakhs and in discharge of said liability he issued a cheque dated
20th January, 2012 for `3 lakhs drawn on Punjab National Bank which was
dishonoured on presentation.
2. After legal notice was served, a complaint was filed under Section 138
of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ' NI Act' ) wherein the stand taken
by respondent No.2 was that he did not issue the cheque in question whereas
the case of the petitioner is that the same was signed by respondent No.2 in
his presence. Handwriting expert was summoned who also opined that
cheque was signed by respondent No.2. During the course of trial, record of
Punjab National Bank, Khanpur Branch was called and it was revealed that
the cheque belonged to respondent No.3 and respondent No.2 handed over
the same by signing it in the presence of the petitioner. Based on this
evidence, the complaint under Section 138 NI Act was dismissed and
respondent No.2 was acquitted on ground that neither the cheque was issued
from the account of respondent No.2 nor did he have any account in Punjab
National Bank, Khanpur Branch.
3. The petitioner filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Police
however no action was taken thereon and thus he filed a complaint under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. along with application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
4. Vide order dated 7th January, 2016 learned Metropolitan Magistrate
relying on the decisions reported as 2001 IV, AD Delhi 625 M/s Skiper
Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State 2002(2) Crimes 488 Gulab Chand Upadhyaya
Vs. State of UP & Ors and 2006(1) Crimes 239 Baldev Thakural Vs. Stae of
Uttranchal dismissed the application for the reason whatever evidence and
material was required to be gathered in police investigation was within the
reach of the petitioner and he adduce the same by summoning the expert
witness and record from the bank and matter was listed for examination of
complainant.
5. Aggrieved by the order dated 7th January, 2016 the petitioner preferred
a revision petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge which was also
dismissed vide the impugned order dated 22 nd March, 2016 for the reasons
noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.
6. The contentions urged before this Court are again the same. It is well
settled that when a complaint is filed before the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C. he has two options either to examine
the complaint and proceed as a complaint case wherein he can also get a
limited inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. conducted or direct registration of
FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C in case the complaint discloses facts which
need police investigation.
7. As noted above, the petitioner alleges that that offence of cheating and
forgery has been committed by respondent No.2. The facts to be discovered
are in the knowledge of the petitioner. The allegation of cheating can be
proved by the deposition of the complainant and his witnesses. Whether the
signatures on the cheque are of respondent No.2 can be proved by
handwriting expert which report has already been obtained by the petitioner.
Thus, besides examining himself, the petitioner can prove his case by
summoning the handwriting expert and bank officials with the concerned
bank records.
8. I find no error in the order dismissing the application under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. which was upheld in the revision petition vide the impugned
order.
9. Petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 21, 2016
'vkm'
