Full Text
$-11 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 3383/2014 &Crl.M.A. 11716/2014
RAJATCHAMOLI „ ..
, Petitioner
Through Mr.S.P. Gairola, Adv.
, Respondents
Through None.
10.03.2015 The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Rajat Chamoli under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order dated IS'"
February, 2014 passed by the Metropohtan Magistrate, North, Rohini
Courts, Delhi, in C.C. No.16/1, Police Station S.P. Badli, titled as Nitin
Yadav vs. PradeepKhanduri &Ors. The said notice was issued on the basis ofthe complaint filed bytherespondent No.l herein i.e. Nitin Yadavagainst the three respondents/accused namely Pradeep Khanduri, Rajat Chamoli, petitioner herein, and Vinod Singh Rawat.
The contents ofthe complaint are that the complainant shared agood relation with the accused persons and ashort term friendly loan ofRs.l5 lac was given to Pradeep Khanduri for a period of one month on account of urgent need. In para 3ofthe complaint, it was specifically mentioned in the complaint that Rajat Chamoli and Vinod Singh Rawat stood guarantors of the short term friendly loan. It is not mentioned in the complaint that there was any written agreement ordocuments in this regard. Learned counsel for
2015:DHC:10706 7/' the petitioner states that the cheque is only signed by Pradeep Khanduri as admitted by the complainant in paras 6and 12 ofthe complairn which read as under: rMm nn?/ accepting, the short term friendly loan of assured the complamant that he will remrn the loan amount along with the interest within one month or as and when demanded by the complainant.
JUDGMENT
12. That finally after being relentlessly pursued by the accused no.l issued one cheque bearing no.050286 dated 04.11.2013 drawn on the Uttranchal Gramin Bank, Karanprayag, Distt. Chamoli for Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten Lac Only) towards the part repayment of the total loan amount ofRs.15,00,000/- (the said cheque is enclosed herewith another cheque bearing no.050287 dated 15.11.2013 drawn on the Uttranchal Gramin Bank Karanprayag, distt. Chamoli for Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lac ?I?o/ remammg prmciple amount plus compound interest @ 24/o P.A. towards the full and final payment of the aforesaid oan amount and the accused no.l assured the complainant that the said cheque will be honoured on its presentation to his bank He has also informed that with regard to the complaint against Pradeep Khanduri, respondent No.2 herein, the same has been returned in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Roop Singh Rathore vs. State ofMaharashtra &Ors., being Crl. Appeal No.2287 of 2009. Counsel states that the accused/respondent No.2 Rajat Chamoli, who is petitioner herein, is unnecessary impleaded as a party in the complaint. When the matter is taken up, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is a % force in his submission to the effect that the complaint against the petitioner is not maintainable as there is no privity between the petitioner and the complamant who has filed the complaint. The petitioner has also not signed the cheque in question. There is no written document whatsoever which may involve the petitioner in the complaint case. Therefore, the complaint case, being C.C. No.16/1, Police Station S.P. Badli, titled as Nitin Yadav vs. Pradeep Khanduri &Ors. is quashed qua the petitioner. The petition is disposed ofaccordingly. Dasti.
MARCH 10, 2015