Delhi High Court
Inderjeet Singh Maggon vs Harash Suri on 30 September, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on : September 30, 2016
+ CRL.M.C. 2927/2016
INDERJEET SINGH MAGGON ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arun Baali, Mr.Siddharth Yadav
and Mr.Jaskaran Singh, Advs.
versus
HARASH SURI ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
JUDGMENT
P.S.TEJI, J.
1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner is seeking an
order thereby challenging the impugned order dated 04.07.2016,
whereby learned Metropolitan Magistrate - 01, N. I. Distt. West, Tis
Hazari, Delhi, vide which the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C.
filed by the respondent was allowed.
2. In nutshell, the present dispute is relating to the bouncing of
cheques given by the petitioner to the respondent herein in lieu of
friendly loan of Rs.18 lacs. Proceedings under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were conducted before the trial
Court. Apart from the aforesaid case for recovery of sum of Rs.18
lacs, another complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is also pending
against the petitioner, which was filed by one Shri Yogender Verma
for recovery of Rs.19.5 lacs. The respondent in the present case has
got the copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner herein to Shri
Yogender Verma admitting the liability towards the respondent and
his wife. Though the said Yogender Verma has also filed a complaint
under Section 138 of NI Act against the petitioner herein, but the
Respondent in the present petition, filed an application under Section
311 of Cr.P.C. for placing the copy of the undertaking given by the
petitioner to the respondent on record. The learned Metropolitan
Magistrate vide order dated 04.07.2016 allowed the application of the
respondent and that's why the petitioner has preferred the instant
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent
has filed the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for placing the
copy of undertaking on the record of his case just to delay the trial.
Besides this, it is contended that the complaint under Section 138 of
NI Act filed by the wife of the respondent herein has already been
dismissed by the trial Court. It is further contended that the respondent
has already admitted during his cross-examination that no
acknowledgement was given by the petitioner in writing against the
alleged loan of Rs.18 lacs. Moreover, the respondent has never
intimated in the legal notice sent to him and filing the copy of
undertaking on record is just a tactics to fill up the lacunae in the
complaint under Section 138 of NI Act filed by the respondent. It is
further contended that there is a specific statement of the respondent in
the case that neither in the case of respondent nor in the case of wife
of respondent, there was any acknowledgement of loan made by the
petitioner either in writing or otherwise. Therefore, it is a settled
proposition of law that the admissions made by the party need not to
be proved.
4. While challenging the impugned order dated 04.07.2016,
learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no cogent
and sufficient ground for allowing the application under Section 311
of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent. More so, the trial of the case is at
final stage and therefore at the fag end of the trial, the application
under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. filed by the respondent could not have
been allowed. It is contended that the impugned order is passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate in a routine manner and without
recording the contention of the petitioner, therefore, the same is liable
to be set aside.
5. I have heard the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for
the petitioner as well as gone through the contents of the petition,
depositions as relied upon by the petitioner and the impugned order.
This Court appreciate with the submission of the petitioner herein that
it is a settled proposition of law that the admission made by a party
need not be proved. The settled proposition of law cannot be applied
only for a particular party, rather it applies to all. What this Court
observes from the perusal of the Undertaking dated 15.02.2013,
sought to be brought on record by the respondent in his case, which is
duly signed by the petitioner herein. There is admission on the part of
the petitioner with regard to receipt of dasti loan of Rs.18 lacs in cash
from Harash Suri (respondent herein) and Rs.20 lacs from Smt. Vinika
Suri (Rs.11 lacs through bank transaction and balance of Rs.9 lacs in
cash).
6. Before allowing the application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. it
is the duty of the Court to determine the relevance of any document
for being brought on record and from the perusal of the impugned
order, this Court observes that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has
exercised his discretion under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. while discussing
the settled law that no party should suffer loss and the best possible
evidence should be brought before the Court by respective parties to
prove their points of contention. This Court does not find any
irregularity or infirmity in the said order.
7. It is also a settled principle that the Trial Court has been given
an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be
judiciously exercised by it. In the considered opinion of this Court,
once the Trial Court has exercised its discretion, it is not for this
Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the learned
Metropolitan Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view
to find out whether or not the document sought to be placed on record
is relevant or not for the proper adjudication of the case. Moreover, the
petitioner is already vested with a right to cross-examine the
respondent in the case, therefore no question of any prejudice seems to
be caused to the petitioner herein.
8. Before parting with the order, this court would like to place it
on record by way of abundant caution that whatever has been stated
hereinabove in this order has been so said only for the purpose of
disposing of the present petition. Nothing contained in this order shall
be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of the issues of
fact or law arising for decision in the case which shall naturally have
to be done by the Trial Court seized of the trial.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition filed by
the petitioner is dismissed.
10. A copy of this order be sent to Trial Court for information.
(P.S.TEJI)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
pkb
