Delhi High Court
Ritesh Jindal(Proprietor) & Anr vs Kanta Devi on 22 January, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CRL.M.C. 6140/2019 and Crl.M.A.No.41566/2019
Date of Decision: 22.01.2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
RITESH JINDAL(PROPRIETOR) & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Dhan Mohan, Ms.Tanu B.
Mishra, Mr.Ravi Mishra and
Ms.Mahima Gautam, Advocates.
versus
KANTA DEVI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjeev Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2019 passed
by the Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (East), Karkardooma Courts in CC
No.57575/2016 arising out of proceedings under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act whereby the order dated 12.09.2019 passed
by the Trial Court was upheld.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the
respondent/complainant in August, 2014 filed a case under Section 138
of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. After the
examination and cross-examination of the respondent/complainant's
witnesses, the petitioner's statement was recorded and the matter was
listed for defence evidence. On 21.08.2019, the petitioner filed his list of
witnesses as well as an application for summoning the witnesses from
Punjab National Bank with respect to CC account
No.1845008700001103 along with complete records in respect of the
same. The petitioner also sought summoning of the concerned person
from P.S. Shalimar Bagh with respect to DD/NCR No.2778/12 and
complaint dated 23.01.2015 filed by the petitioner against the
respondent. Lastly, the petitioner also sought summoning of the
concerned Clerk/Ahlmad of the concerned Court with respect to CC
No.9306/2016 tilted as "Ritesh Jindal v. Kanta Devi" along with the
original file.
3. The Trial Court vide its order dated 12.09.2019 dismissed the
petitioner's application for summoning of the witnesses with the records.
While passing the aforesaid order, the Trial Court also closed the right of
the petitioner to lead defence evidence.
4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that he is restricting his prayer in the aforesaid application only
to summoning the witness from Punjab National Bank along with the
complete records with respect to the afore-mentioned account.
5. He submitted that although the respondent/complainant had
summoned the witnesses from the Bank who were examined as CW-2
and CW-3, however, the cross-examination with respect to the afore-
mentioned account could not be carried out in detail as the concerned
witnesses brought only the "Account opening form" and statement of
account with respect to the afore-mentioned account without the other
supporting documents.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that initially he was in partnership
with one Naveen Yadav in M/s. Priya Garments which had a CC account
No.184500870000931 maintained in the Punjab National Bank.
Subsequently, the partnership was dissolved and a fresh account being
CC account No.1845008700001103 was opened by said Naveen Yadav
in the name of M/s. Priya Garments in the same branch of Punjab
National Bank.
7. It is further the case of the petitioner that he had no concern with
the respondent, as no transaction ever took place between the petitioner
and the respondent. He submitted that the petitioner's firm namely, SR
Retail India had no concern with the respondent and the cheque in
question was never issued by the petitioner.
8. He has also referred to the reply dated 08.11.2017 filed on behalf
of the Punjab National Bank with respect to the petitioner's application
where it has been stated that the respondent stood as guarantor (by
mortgaging the title deeds of her property) in the CC Account No.
184500870000931 of M/s. Priya Garments and that the original title
documents were released to her after the CC limit of M/s Priya Garments
vide CC Account No. No.1845008700001103 was closed on 16.07.2015
vide OTS by paying Rs.52,50,000 as a guarantor of M/s. Priya Garments.
It was further stated that the original title documents were released to the
respondent on 22.07.2015.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
concerned witnesses i.e. CW-2 & CW-3 from the Punjab National Bank
had produced the relevant records and were duly cross-examined by the
petitioner's counsel and as such the present petition is nothing but an
attempt to delay the trial. He has also referred to the letter dated
30.03.2012 issued by the petitioner to the respondent.
10. A perusal of the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the Trial Court
would indicate that it was passed without appreciating the petitioner's
contention that except for the account opening form and statement of
account with respect to CC account No. 1845008700001103, no
supporting document was brought by the concerned witnesses.
11. Without commenting on the merits of the case, it is deemed
appropriate that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned
order is set aside and subject to payment of cost of Rs.25,000/-, the
petitioner is permitted to summon the relevant witness along with
complete records from the Punjab National Bank with respect to CC
account No.1845008700001103. The cross-examination shall be
completed by the petitioner on one date unless, in the opinion of the Trial
Court, the cross-examination cannot be completed in a single date. Out of
the aforesaid cost of Rs.25,000/-, a sum of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid by
the petitioner to the respondent and the remaining balance amount of
Rs.15,000/- shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Delhi Legal
Services Authority within a period of two weeks.
12. The petition and the application are disposed of in the above terms.
13. A copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court.
(MANOJ KUMAR OHRI)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2020
'dc'
