Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 2101/2015 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 18, 2015
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 18, 2015
CRL.M.C. 2101/2015 & Crl.M.A.7469/2015
M/S AARUSHI PHARMACEUTICALS & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Rana, Advocate
M/S AARUSHI PHARMACEUTICALS & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Rana, Advocate
VERSUS
M/S VEEKAY SURGICAL PVT LTD ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo
Through: Nemo
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
In proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, petitioner’s application under Section 145 (2) of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands dismissed by trial court vide impugned order of 22nd July, 2013.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners-accused persons submitted that petitioner No.2 needs to cross-examine respondent- complainant regarding the cheque being tendered as a security cheque and so, rejections of petitioner’s application under Section 145 (2) of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is uncalled for and so, impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order of 22nd July, 2015:DHC:4414
In proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, petitioner’s application under Section 145 (2) of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands dismissed by trial court vide impugned order of 22nd July, 2013.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioners-accused persons submitted that petitioner No.2 needs to cross-examine respondent- complainant regarding the cheque being tendered as a security cheque and so, rejections of petitioner’s application under Section 145 (2) of The
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is uncalled for and so, impugned order deserves to be quashed.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order of 22nd July, 2015:DHC:4414
CRL.M.C. 2101/2015 Page 2
2013, I find that trial court has noticed that the stand of petitioner-accused persons is that petitioner has refused to pay the cheque amount due to defective quality of goods.
In view of the aforesaid stand taken by petitioner, cross- examination of respondent-complainant by petitioners-accused persons is not at all justified and the trial court has rightly declined petitioner’s application under Section 145 (2) of The Negotiable Instruments Act,
2013, I find that trial court has noticed that the stand of petitioner-accused persons is that petitioner has refused to pay the cheque amount due to defective quality of goods.
In view of the aforesaid stand taken by petitioner, cross- examination of respondent-complainant by petitioners-accused persons is not at all justified and the trial court has rightly declined petitioner’s application under Section 145 (2) of The Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881. Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner No.2 to step into the witness box to depose on the plea of cheque in question being a security cheque and on the defence already taken by petitioner at the stage of framing of Notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C.. This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE MAY 18, 2015 s