Delhi High Court
Manmohan Batra vs Tanuj K Sahgal & Anr on 5 May, 2017
$ 20 & 22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Pronounced on:05th May, 2017
+ CRL.L.P. 576/2015 and Crl. M.A. 10947/2015 and 4120/2016
MANMOHAN BATRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Lavika Gupta, Advocate with
petitioner in person
Versus
TANUJ K SAHGAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Advocate
+ CRL.L.P. 667/2015 and Crl. M.A. 13767/2015
INDER RAJ BATRA & SONS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Lavika Gupta, Advocate with
petitioner in person
versus
TANUJ K SAHGAL & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sunil Dalal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petitioner Manmohan Batra (Crl. L.P. 576/2015) had
instituted criminal complaint on 18.08.2007 in the court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate against the respondents Tanuj K. Sahgal and
Poonam Sahgal alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 on the allegations that the latter had failed to
make payment inspite of notice of demand issued and served after the
return of cheque dated 03.06.2007 for Rs.4.50 Crores, which had been
earlier issued by the respondent in favour of the complainant, with the
remarks of the bank "funds insufficient". The other petitioner Inder
Raj Batra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. (Crl. L. P. 667/2015) had similarly
instituted another complaint on 18.08.2007 against the same set of
respondents with similar allegations qua another cheque dated
02.06.2007 in the sum of Rs.5.50 Crores. It appears that in both the
cases, on the basis of preliminary evidence, the respondents stood
summoned as accused and the cases entered trial on the basis of
separate notices under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr. PC) issued and served on the first respondent on
25.09.2010. The said cases (then registered as CC 2109/1/09 and
1896/1/09 respectively), however, came to be dismissed in default on
account of non- appearance on the part of the complainant on
06.08.2013 whereby the respondents stood acquitted.
2. By the petitions at hand, the complainants seek leave to institute
criminal appeals in terms of Section 378(4) Cr. PC, the petitions
having been presented with applications (Crl. M.A. Nos.10947/2015
& 13767/2015) seeking condonation of delay.
3. In the course of the proceedings in the first petition, an
application (Cr. M.A. 4120/2016) was moved by the petitioner seeking
to place on record the new address of the respondents. Since the
presence of the respondents has been secured, the said application
having served its purpose, stands disposed of.
4. The grounds on which the petitions for leave to file criminal
appeals and on which the condonation of delay in institution of these
proceedings in August 2015, have been pressed, are common. It is the
petitioners' case that the previous counsel engaged by them before the
trial court for prosecuting the criminal complaint cases on their behalf
had been wholly negligent. It is the petitioners' submission that even
after the dismissal of the complaints, the counsel kept on dilly-
dallying and did not take the matter seriously and eventually
persuaded the petitioners to take steps for moving the applications for
restoration which, obviously, would not have been the appropriate
remedy since the criminal court (the court of the Metropolitan
Magistrate) did not have the power to review, the only appropriate
remedy being by invoking Section 378(4) Cr. PC in as much as the
dismissal of the complaints in default have resulted in acquittal of the
respondents under Section 256 Cr. PC.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having
regard to the background facts stated, the trial court record also
revealing utter neglect on the part of the counsel representing the
petitioners in the proceedings before the trial court preceding the
impugned order, a good case for not only condonation of delay but
also to grant leave to appeal has been made out.
6. Thus, the delay is condoned. Leave to appeal in both these
matters is granted. The criminal appeals shall stand registered.
Crl. A _______/2017 (to be numbered) and Crl. A. ______/2017 (to
be numbered)
7. For the foregoing reasons, a good case for the impugned orders
dismissing the criminal complaints of the appellants has been made
out, having regard to the principle that the parties should not suffer on
account of the neglect by their counsel, the stakes for the appellant
being undoubtedly very high, this keeping in view the quantum of
money represented by the cheques in question.
8. Thus, the appeals are allowed. The impugned orders are set
aside. The complaint cases mentioned above stand restored on the file
of the Metropolitan Magistrate, who is directed to proceed further in
accordance with law.
9. The complainants (appellants) and the accused (the first
respondent) are directed to appear before the concerned Metropolitan
Magistrate for further proceedings on 29.05.2017.
10. The records of the two cases of the trial court shall be returned
forthwith with copies of this judgment.
(R.K. GAUBA)
JUDGE
MAY 05, 2017
yg
