Full Text
Translation output
CRL.M.C. 663 & 673 of 2014 Page 1 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: February 03, 2015 (i) CRL.M.C. 663/2014 & Crl.M.A 2217/2014
MADHURIMA CHANDRA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Advocate
Date of Decision: February 03, 2015 (i) CRL.M.C. 663/2014 & Crl.M.A 2217/2014
MADHURIMA CHANDRA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Advocate
VERSUS
M/S ANSUN ELECTRONICS PVT LTD & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1
(ii) CRL.M.C. 673/2014 & Crl.M.A. 2237/2014 MADHURIMA CHANDRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Advocate
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1
(ii) CRL.M.C. 673/2014 & Crl.M.A. 2237/2014 MADHURIMA CHANDRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Advocate
VERSUS
M/S ANSUN ELECTRONICS PVT LTD & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1
Through: Mr.Navin Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State Mr. Mehul Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
(ORAL)
In above-captioned two petitions, quashing of summoning order in
2015:DHC:1087 CRL.M.C. 663 & 673 of 2014 Page 2 proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits.
Since the quashing of the impugned summoning order is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had relied upon decisions in Urmila Kumari v. Rukmani Devi & Ors. 2013 II AD (Crl.)
(DHC) 342, Manish Bhaskar v. State & Anr. 2009 [4] JCC [NI] 233, Geeta Srivastava v. Bhanu Sharma 2003 I AD (Cr.) DHC 526, Devi v.
Haridas 2005 [1] JCC [NI] 23, Srikant Somani & Ors. v. Sharad Gupta &
Anr. 2005 [2] JCC [NI] 138 & Girish Saxena v. Praveen Kumar Jain &
Ors. 2007 [2] JCC [NI] 220 to submit that liability is only on the drawer, who had issued the cheque, and since petitioner had not issued the cheque, therefore, summoning of petitioner as an accused is abuse of process of the Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed on record copy of trial court’s order of 14th July, 2011, Notice framed under Section 251 of
Cr.P.C. and the statement of petitioner recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. by trial court and had submitted that even the defence evidence has been closed and the matter is now coming up before trial court on 9th February, 2015.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the material on record and the decisions, I find that since the matter has now reached at the final stage before trial court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein
CRL.M.C. 663 & 673 of 2014 Page 3 before the trial court at the stage of final arguments.
In view of aforesaid, the above captioned two petitions and the applications are disposed of while not commenting upon merits, lest it may prejudice either side before trial court.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 03, 2015 s
In above-captioned two petitions, quashing of summoning order in
2015:DHC:1087 CRL.M.C. 663 & 673 of 2014 Page 2 proceedings under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is sought on merits.
Since the quashing of the impugned summoning order is sought on identical grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of together by this common judgment.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had relied upon decisions in Urmila Kumari v. Rukmani Devi & Ors. 2013 II AD (Crl.)
(DHC) 342, Manish Bhaskar v. State & Anr. 2009 [4] JCC [NI] 233, Geeta Srivastava v. Bhanu Sharma 2003 I AD (Cr.) DHC 526, Devi v.
Haridas 2005 [1] JCC [NI] 23, Srikant Somani & Ors. v. Sharad Gupta &
Anr. 2005 [2] JCC [NI] 138 & Girish Saxena v. Praveen Kumar Jain &
Ors. 2007 [2] JCC [NI] 220 to submit that liability is only on the drawer, who had issued the cheque, and since petitioner had not issued the cheque, therefore, summoning of petitioner as an accused is abuse of process of the Court.
Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has placed on record copy of trial court’s order of 14th July, 2011, Notice framed under Section 251 of
Cr.P.C. and the statement of petitioner recorded under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. by trial court and had submitted that even the defence evidence has been closed and the matter is now coming up before trial court on 9th February, 2015.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order, the material on record and the decisions, I find that since the matter has now reached at the final stage before trial court, therefore, this Court is not inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to urge the pleas taken herein
CRL.M.C. 663 & 673 of 2014 Page 3 before the trial court at the stage of final arguments.
In view of aforesaid, the above captioned two petitions and the applications are disposed of while not commenting upon merits, lest it may prejudice either side before trial court.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 03, 2015 s