Full Text
Translation output
$-21 to 24 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 1922/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.5899/2013
KAMAL BAJAJ Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja & Mr. Kartikeya Bhargava, Advocates
STATE & ANR.
CRL.M.C. 1922/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.5899/2013
KAMAL BAJAJ Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja & Mr. Kartikeya Bhargava, Advocates
STATE & ANR.
VERSUS
.... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Mr. S.K.Grover, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Through: Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public Prosecutor for State
Mr. S.K.Grover, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CRL.M.C. 1930/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.5938/2013
VERSUS
CRL.M.C. 1931/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.5940/2013
VERSUS
STATE 8c ANR. .... Respondents Crl.M.C.Nos.l922,1930,1931 & 1932 of 2013 Page 1
2015:DHC:11152
2015:DHC:11152
CRL.M.C. 1932/2013 & Crl.M.A.No.5942/2013
VERSUS
Through:
Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
Mr. Ravi Nayak, Additional Public
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
01.05.2015 In the above-captioned four petitions, quashing of four complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits when petitioner's application under Section 145 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is pending before the trial court for consideration.
At the hearing, with consent of learned counsel for parties these petitions were heard together as quashing of the impugned complaints was sought on identical grounds and vide this common
01.05.2015 In the above-captioned four petitions, quashing of four complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits when petitioner's application under Section 145 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 is pending before the trial court for consideration.
At the hearing, with consent of learned counsel for parties these petitions were heard together as quashing of the impugned complaints was sought on identical grounds and vide this common
ORDER
these petitions are being disposed of
Learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this court to the averments made in paragraphs No.3 & 4 of the complaints in
Crl.M.C.Nos.l922,1930,1931 & 1932 of 2013 Page 2 c c
2-2 question to submit that there is no existing debt or Hability and so petitioner's prosecution in these complaints is an abuse of process of the
Court particularly, in view of the fact that civil suits between the parties are pending at the evidence stage. Learned counsel for respondent- complainant had supported the summoning order and submitted that quashing of the complaint in question is sought on facts, which are required to be established at trial and so no case of quashing of the complaints in question is made out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of complaints in question and the summoning order, I find that no doubt civil litigation between the parties is pending but there is no bar to the continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of the same transaction because petitioner is the signatory of the cheques in question and the grounds on which quashing of the complaints in question is sought are required to be tested at trial.
In view of the aforesaid, above-captioned four petitions are dismissed while refraining to quash the complaints in question and the summoning orders with liberty to petitioner to put its case to respondent- complainant in evidence. It is made clear that the ground and stand taken are not being commented upon, lest it may prejudice either side at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 01, 2015 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.l922,1930,1931 &1932 of 2013 Page 3
Learned counsel for petitioner had drawn the attention of this court to the averments made in paragraphs No.3 & 4 of the complaints in
Crl.M.C.Nos.l922,1930,1931 & 1932 of 2013 Page 2 c c
2-2 question to submit that there is no existing debt or Hability and so petitioner's prosecution in these complaints is an abuse of process of the
Court particularly, in view of the fact that civil suits between the parties are pending at the evidence stage. Learned counsel for respondent- complainant had supported the summoning order and submitted that quashing of the complaint in question is sought on facts, which are required to be established at trial and so no case of quashing of the complaints in question is made out.
Upon hearing and on perusal of complaints in question and the summoning order, I find that no doubt civil litigation between the parties is pending but there is no bar to the continuance of criminal proceedings in respect of the same transaction because petitioner is the signatory of the cheques in question and the grounds on which quashing of the complaints in question is sought are required to be tested at trial.
In view of the aforesaid, above-captioned four petitions are dismissed while refraining to quash the complaints in question and the summoning orders with liberty to petitioner to put its case to respondent- complainant in evidence. It is made clear that the ground and stand taken are not being commented upon, lest it may prejudice either side at trial.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 01, 2015 vn Crl.M.C.Nos.l922,1930,1931 &1932 of 2013 Page 3