Delhi High Court
Anjaney Telefilms Pvt Ltd And ... vs Chitrashala Multi Media Pvt Ltd. on 4 July, 2023
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 5889/2022, CRL.M.A. 23108/2022
ANJANEY TELEFILMS (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER .... Petitioners
Through: Mr. P. S. Singhal, Mr. Sunil Kumar
and Mr. Akansh Singhal, Advs.
versus
CHITRASHALA MULTI MEDIA (P) LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Mr.
Pratap Paliwal and Mr. Rohit Lochan,
Advs.
21
+ CRL.M.C. 5890/2022, CRL.M.A. 23112/2022
22
+ CRL.M.C. 5891/2022, CRL.M.A. 23114/2022
ANJANEY TELEFILMS PVT LTD AND ANOTHER .... Petitioners
Through: Mr. P. S. Singhal, Mr. Sunil Kumar
and Mr. Akansh Singhal, Advs.
versus
CHITRASHALA MULTI MEDIA PVT LTD. ..... Respondent
Through: Dr. Vikrant Narayan Vasudeva, Mr.
Pratap Paliwal and Mr. Rohit Lochan,
Advs.
% Date of Decision: 4th July, 2023
CRL.M.C. 5889/2022 & connect matters Page 1 of 5
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
17:04:28
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA
JUDGMENT
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The present petitions have been filed challenging certain observations
made by learned MM while recording the cross examination of the
complainant on 24.09.2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court
has wrongly disallowed the confrontation of the complainant with his
application under Section 311 Cr. PC. Similarly, learned counsel
submits that the learned Trial Court had also wrongly rejected the
objections of the petitioner/accused on the ground that the e-mail
being shown by the complainant/respondent on his mobile has been
taken into account by the learned Trial Court without any certificate
under Section 65 B Indian Evidence Act, l972.
3. Learned Trial court made the following observations:
"(At this stage, the counsel for the accused has confronted para 2
of application w/s 311 Crpc and has confronted the facts so
mentioned)
Court observation: The same is disallowed since application w/s
311 Crpc has already been decided and allowed.
The email dated 26.02.2014 was written by the accused Anupam
Khalidhar in furtherance in his request that I should tally my
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
17:04:28
accounts and issue him a certificate so that the same can be
deposited in his ITR. I have sent certificate to the accused.
It is correct that the email dated 26.02.2014 does not reflect any
attach logo.
(At this stage, witness submits that he can access his email in his
mobile. The same is seen by the undersigned. However the same is
objected by the counsel on the ground that he has no opportunity
to verify the mobile handset of the complainant including the
email)
Court Observation: The same is been decided in favour of the
complainat in view of the fact that witness has shown his mobile
and the email II including the email dated 26.02.2014 which is
reflecting in the gmail. It is also observed that an excel
attatchment form be part of this email."
4. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court may decide the objections
raised by the petitioner-accused at the time of final disposal in
accordance with the law.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he would have no
objections are decided at the time of final decision.
6. In view of the submissions, the following Court observations;
"(At this stage, the counsel for the accused has cofronted para 2
of application w/s 311 Crpc and has confronted the facts so
mentioned)
Court observation: The same is disallowed since appalication w/s
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
17:04:28
311 Crpc has already been decided and allowed.
The email dated 26.02.2014 was written by the accused Anupam
Kalidhar in furtherance in his request that I should tally my
accounts and issue him a certificate so that the same can be
deposited in his ITR. I have sent certificate to the accused.
It is correct that the email dated 26.02.2014 does not reflect any
attach logo.
(At this stage, witness submits that he can access his email in his
mobile. The same is seen by the undersigned. However the same is
objected by the cousel on the ground that he has no opportunity to
verify the mobile handset of the complainant including the email) I
Court Observation: The same is been decided in favour of the
complainat in view of the fact that witness has shown his mobile
and the email II including the email dated 26.02.2014 which is
reflecting in the gmail. It is also observed that an excel
attatchment form be part of this email."
are set aside and the learned Trial Court shall give its finding after the
appreciation of the evidence in accordance with law.
7. It is relevant to note that, admittedly the certificate under Section 65 B
has been filed by the respondent/complainant.
8. With these observations the present petitions bearing CRL.M.C.
5889/2022, CRL.M.C. 5890/2022 and CRL.M.C. 5891/2022 along
with pending applications stands disposed of. However, it is made
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
17:04:28
clear that this court has gone into the merits of the case and no
expression made herein shall tantamount to be an expression on the
merits of the case.
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J
JULY 4, 2023
Pallavi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RAJ
BALA
Signing Date:11.07.2023
17:04:28
