Delhi High Court
L R Vishwanath vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 5 July, 2018
$~30
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 5th July, 2018
+ CRL.M.C. 4599/2015 and Crl. MA 16461/2015, 16462/2015
and 14794/2017
L R VISHWANATH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate
versus
STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, APP with SI
Amit Kumar, PS Anand Vihar, Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. On the criminal complaint of second respondent, the petitioner
was summoned by the Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial for offence
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the
accusations relating to seven cheques issued and allegedly drawn on
State Bank of Patiala, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi by the petitioner,
they being cheque nos.760458 dated 27.06.2015 for Rs.2,00,000/-;
no.760453 dated 30.06.2015 for Rs.2,00,000/-; no.760459 dated
25.06.2015 for Rs.2,25,000/-, no.760460 dated 01.07.2015 for
Rs.2,00,000/-, no.760461 dated 29.06.2015 for Rs.1,21,000/-,
no.760462 dated 01.07.2015 for Rs.3,04,000/-; and no.380712 dated
30.06.2015 for Rs.3,00,000/-. The cheques were stated to have been
presented for encashment by the second respondent in his account
with Axis Bank Ltd., B-7, Ashoka Niketan, Anand Vihar, New Delhi
but were returned unpaid. The second respondent has claimed in the
case that he had sent a legal notice of demand on 08.07.2015 to the
petitioner inspite of which no payment was made and rather a reply on
false and contradictory grounds was sent.
2. The petitioner has challenged the summoning order by the
petition at hand invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, the prayer being for the proceedings in the said
criminal complaint case (667/2015) to be quashed.
3. It is the version of the petitioner that he is a high ranking officer
of Government of India working in the capacity of Additional Director
General under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. He
claims that he had availed of a loan in the sum of Rs.28,34,238/- from
India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd. (third respondent) for raising finance
for purchasing a residential property. According to him, M/s.
Chanson Motors Pvt. Ltd., a contractor engaged by the Department
where he was employed had provided taxi services to him, wherein the
second respondent (complainant of the criminal case) was deputed as a
driver who would remain at his disposal from 04.06.2014 till May
2015. It is his version that during one journey to his office, on account
of telephonic conversation with his wife regarding the intended
purchase of a residential property in Delhi, the second respondent had
become privy to his effort and had offered help. He states that the
house which he intended to purchase and for which finance was raised
eventually from the third respondent was one of the several properties
shown to him by the second respondent with the help of a property
dealer. It is also his version that on the pretext of his house being
under repair at that time, the second respondent was permitted by him
(the petitioner) to use the house which was purchased in the name of
his wife with the finance raised from the third respondent. But when
the petitioner asked for the return of the keys of the house, the second
respondent started demanding Rs.15,50,000/- to be paid, claiming it
was outstanding towards purchase of the house. It is the version of the
petitioner that the cheques on the basis of which the criminal
complaint has been lodged had infact been issued by him (the
petitioner) to the third respondent as a "security" for the loan
transaction but the same had been fraudulently obtained by the second
respondent to set up a false case of offence under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act.
4. The contentions raised by the petitioner as aforesaid bring out a
factual version which is apparently contrary to the version of the
second respondent in the criminal complaint. According to the
allegations in the said complaint, the petitioner had availed of a private
loan from the second respondent and the cheques were infact meant
for discharge of the liability arising out of the said loan. The
summoning order has been passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate on
the basis of evidence led before him that includes the sworn testimony
of the second respondent. Questions of fact arise and the forum under
Section 482 Cr. PC or, for that matter, the jurisdiction under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is hardly the appropriate forum or
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such questions of fact. The word of the
petitioner as against that of the complainant of the case will have to be
tested at the trial, particularly when the petitioner does not dispute that
the cheques in question bear his signatures and were drawn against his
own bank account.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this court is not inclined to interdict
at this stage of the criminal process. The petitioner will have the
liberty to raise defence in the above nature during the trial into the
complaint case before the Metropolitan Magistrate.
6. The petition for quashing of the criminal proceedings and the
applications filed therewith are dismissed.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 05, 2018
yg
