Delhi High Court
Ansal Buildwell Ltd vs Rakesh Bedi on 2 August, 2018
$~8
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 02nd August, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 3788/2015 and Crl. M.A. 13429/2015
ANSAL BUILDWELL LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal and Mr.
Shailesh Pandey, Advocates
versus
RAKESH BEDI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Azhar Qayam, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The criminal complaint case (CC no.1146/1) from which the
present proceeding arise was initiated by the respondent (complainant)
on 19.07.2002 alleging offences punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 having been committed, inter alia,
by the petitioner. It continues to be hanging fire in the court of the
Metropolitan Magistrate till date. At the stage of trial, objection was
taken on behalf of the accused (petitioner) as to the affidavit of the
complainant on which he was being called upon to cross-examine.
The petitioner (accused) would refer to the affidavit that had been
submitted in 2002 to point out that its contents were different from
another affidavit of the complainant that had been tendered in 2007, he
expressing inability to cross-examine on such account. The
Magistrate observed in the proceedings recorded on 27.05.2015 that
similar objection had been raised on the previous date, it having been
settled, the accused being obliged to cross-examine the complainant
on the basis of affidavit that had been pressed as evidence at the trial
i.e. after summoning and in the wake of notice under Section 251 Cr.
PC. The Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 27.05.2015, held
that the affidavit of 2002 shall be read in evidence at the stage of post-
summoning evidence as is permissible in law.
2. The petitioner challenged the above-said order by approaching
the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing
petition (Crl. Revision No.26/2015) which was dismissed by order
dated 18.08.2015.
3. The petition at hand was filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction
of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr. PC) to bring a fresh challenge to the order of the
Metropolitan Magistrate.
4. Against the above backdrop, question arose as to whether the
petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed
to take recourse to the petition at hand as a substitute for virtually a
second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under
Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.
5. This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the
decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni,
(1997) 4 SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 and
Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr.,
(2005) 2 SCC 571 and following similar view taken by a learned
single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr.,
ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 in absence of a special case being made has
earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in
Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi &
Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
6. The counsel for the petitioner conceded at the hearing that the
affidavit submitted in the pre-summoning inquiry in a case relating to
offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act can be used as evidence at
the trial after service of notice under Section 251 Cr. PC. In this view
of the matter as well, there is no merit or substance in the contentions
raised. The petitioner may avail of the subsequent affidavit of 2007
for bringing out contradictions, if there are any, during cross-
examination. It, however, is not his domain to insist that the
subsequent affidavit only be treated as examination-in-chief.
7. There are no special circumstances made out in the case at hand
for the revisional court's view to be disturbed.
8. The petition and the application filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
AUGUST 02, 2018
yg
