Full Text
/ A C HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 4861/2018 «& CRL.M.A.32722/2018
ANKIT LAMBA & ANR Petitioners
Through : Mr. Tanveer AhmadMir, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Ms. Raveesha Guptaand Ms. StutiGupta, Advs.
Through : Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State.
Mr. Shashank Rai, Adv. for Mr. Navneet Singh, R-2.
ANKIT LAMBA & ANR Petitioners Tlirough : Mr. Tanveer Ahmad Mir, Mr. Ravinder Singh, Ms. Raveesha Gupta and Ms. Stuti Gupta, Advs.
Through : Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State.
14.01.2019 The case set up by respondent no.2 in the complaint under Section
138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "the Act") before the Trial
Court against the petitioner is that he had given til lacs to petitioner as loan
2019:DHC:7627 on 19'*^ October, 2015. Petitioner promised to repay the loan on or before
20"^ December, 2015. The petitioner issued four cheques of ^5,00,000/- each and one cheque of ^7,00,000. All these cheques are involved in the complaint cases. It was alleged that all cheques were returned dishonoured on presentation withthe remark payment stopped by the drawer.
Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the petitioner by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on 04.04.2018. In response to the notice, petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Inhis defence, the petitioner tookdefence in the following manner :
"I have taken Rs.27 lacs from the complainant in cash somewhere around July/August 2015 and returned the same amount of Rs.27 lacs to the complainant in cash in October
ORDER
2015. The cheque in question were issued to the complainant by me at the time of taking the amount of Rs.27 lacs from the complainant. However, complainant did not returned the said chequ3es to me despite receiving the entire amount in cash." I The petitioner preferred an application under Section 145 (2) of the Act. In the application, the petitioner alleged that the source of income for the grant of loan of ^27,00,000/- (^17,00,000/- in one case and ?10,00,000/in another connected case) needs to be ascertained. Moreover the mode and manner in which the said amount is paid is also to be ascertained from the complainant. It was, thus, contended that respondent no.2 was required to be cross-examined on these aspects. This application was disposed of on 07.06.2018. The Trial Court held that accused had admitted that he had taken ?27,00,000/- from the complainant. His defence was that he had repaid the loan. Accordingly, no ground was made out for cross-examining the complainant on the aspect of source as well as mode and manner in which the loan amount was paid by the complainant. The petitioner preferred revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been dismissed vide the order impuged in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. That is how petitioner is before this court. I do not find any perversity in the impugned order, inasmuch as, no ^ miscarriage ofjustice has resulted to the petitioner. It has not been disputed by the petitioner that complainant had advanced the loan. The plea taken by the petitioner in his defence is that the loan amount was duly paid by him. Thus, in my view trial court has rightly held that source, mode and the manner of payment of advancing amount of loan by the complainant was not in dispute. The petitions are dismissed. / A.K. PATHAK, J. JANUARY 14,2019 ga