Full Text
Translation output
"7 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
TR.P.(CRL.)72/2016
TR.P.(CRL.)72/2016
TR.P.(CRL.)73/2016
TR.P.(CRL.)74/2016
NAVEEN MALHOTRA
Petitioner
Through; Mr.O.P. Gtilbarii, Advocate
<■
STATE & ORS
NAVEEN MALHOTRA
Petitioner
Through; Mr.O.P. Gtilbarii, Advocate
<■
STATE & ORS
VERSUS
Through:
Respondent Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP with SI Rampal, PS SJ Enclave
Mr. Kundan, Kumar Mishra, Ajay Kumar, Shubham Saket and Ashutosh
Mishra, Adv for R-2
Respondent Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP with SI Rampal, PS SJ Enclave
Mr. Kundan, Kumar Mishra, Ajay Kumar, Shubham Saket and Ashutosh
Mishra, Adv for R-2
CORAM;
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
09.01.2017 The petitioner has preferred the present transfer petitions under
Section 407 Cr PC to seek the transfer of CC No.51428/2016 (old no.819/2013); CC No.51485/2016 (old no.828/13), and; CC No.51429/2016
(old no.820/2013) filed by respondent no.2 under Section 138 ofNegotiable
Instrument Act against the"petitioner to the court of the learned MM, Saket
Courts where the trial in FIR 485/2014 is pending. In the said FIR, 2017:DHC:8576 registered consequent upon passing of orders u/s 156(3). Cr P.C by the learned Magistrate, cognisance stands taken and respondent no.2 has been summoned. The petitioner also seeks that first the trial in FIR 485/2014 be, completed and then the trial in CC No.51428/2016,CC No.51485/2016 and
CC No. 51429/2016 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act be proceeded with. The petitioner seeks stay of the trial in the aforesaid eomplaint cases in the meantime.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the consistent stand of the petitioner throughout has been that respondent no.2 had obtained 25 cheques in all including the three cheques in respect of which the aforesaid complaint has been preferred by respondent no.2 u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, by use ofthreat and coercion. The defence of the petitioner/ accused is that there was ho legally recoverable debt or other liability from the petitioner by the respondent/ complainant. In this regard, reference has been made to the following documents/facts: i) the communication sent by the petitioner to its bank stopping payment in respect ofthe 25 eheques issued to respondent no.2 on the ground that they had been obtained by use offorce and- threat; . ' ii) the stand taken by the petitioner/ accused in its reply issued in response to the statutory notice issued by respondent no.2 u/s
138 ofNegotiable Instrument Act; iii) the defence disclosed by the petitioner in his statement under
Section 251' Cr PC before the learned Magistrate upon the petitioner being summoned in the proeeedings under Section
138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act; , , iv) the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3)
CrPC which forms the basis ofthe FIR No.485/2014 registered
.againstrespondent ho.2.
It is, therefore, argued that in case the trial in the complaint cases preferred by respondent no.2 under.Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and the police case registered vide FIR No.485/2014 is not consolidated, the same may lead to conflicting and divergent findings. It is submitted that the defence ofthe petitioner/ accused in the proceedings under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Actforms the basis ofthe complaint in relation to the aforesaid FIR.
Counsel for respondent No,2, though does not object to the consolidation ofthe trial in the police case and the complaint preferred by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,submits that there,are 9 complaint eases-8 preferred by respondent no.2 and one by wife, in respect of the 25 cheques. The stage in those cases is the cross examination of the complainant witnesses. Therefore, it is submitted that instead of transferring the said complaint eases, the police case vide FfR
485/2014 may be transferred to the same court where the complaint cases are pending.
In view ofthe aforesaid,the trial in the police case vide FIR 4,85/2014 registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave stands transferred to the court before whom the 9 complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act preferred by respondent no.2 and his wife are pending. It shall be open to the learned MM concerned to decide the order in which the eases should be proceeded. . i'
The petitions stand disposed ofin the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI,J JANUARY 09,2017 sr
09.01.2017 The petitioner has preferred the present transfer petitions under
Section 407 Cr PC to seek the transfer of CC No.51428/2016 (old no.819/2013); CC No.51485/2016 (old no.828/13), and; CC No.51429/2016
(old no.820/2013) filed by respondent no.2 under Section 138 ofNegotiable
Instrument Act against the"petitioner to the court of the learned MM, Saket
Courts where the trial in FIR 485/2014 is pending. In the said FIR, 2017:DHC:8576 registered consequent upon passing of orders u/s 156(3). Cr P.C by the learned Magistrate, cognisance stands taken and respondent no.2 has been summoned. The petitioner also seeks that first the trial in FIR 485/2014 be, completed and then the trial in CC No.51428/2016,CC No.51485/2016 and
CC No. 51429/2016 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act be proceeded with. The petitioner seeks stay of the trial in the aforesaid eomplaint cases in the meantime.
The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the consistent stand of the petitioner throughout has been that respondent no.2 had obtained 25 cheques in all including the three cheques in respect of which the aforesaid complaint has been preferred by respondent no.2 u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act, by use ofthreat and coercion. The defence of the petitioner/ accused is that there was ho legally recoverable debt or other liability from the petitioner by the respondent/ complainant. In this regard, reference has been made to the following documents/facts: i) the communication sent by the petitioner to its bank stopping payment in respect ofthe 25 eheques issued to respondent no.2 on the ground that they had been obtained by use offorce and- threat; . ' ii) the stand taken by the petitioner/ accused in its reply issued in response to the statutory notice issued by respondent no.2 u/s
138 ofNegotiable Instrument Act; iii) the defence disclosed by the petitioner in his statement under
Section 251' Cr PC before the learned Magistrate upon the petitioner being summoned in the proeeedings under Section
138 ofNegotiable Instruments Act; , , iv) the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3)
CrPC which forms the basis ofthe FIR No.485/2014 registered
.againstrespondent ho.2.
It is, therefore, argued that in case the trial in the complaint cases preferred by respondent no.2 under.Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act and the police case registered vide FIR No.485/2014 is not consolidated, the same may lead to conflicting and divergent findings. It is submitted that the defence ofthe petitioner/ accused in the proceedings under Section 138 ofNegotiable Instruments Actforms the basis ofthe complaint in relation to the aforesaid FIR.
Counsel for respondent No,2, though does not object to the consolidation ofthe trial in the police case and the complaint preferred by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,submits that there,are 9 complaint eases-8 preferred by respondent no.2 and one by wife, in respect of the 25 cheques. The stage in those cases is the cross examination of the complainant witnesses. Therefore, it is submitted that instead of transferring the said complaint eases, the police case vide FfR
485/2014 may be transferred to the same court where the complaint cases are pending.
In view ofthe aforesaid,the trial in the police case vide FIR 4,85/2014 registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave stands transferred to the court before whom the 9 complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act preferred by respondent no.2 and his wife are pending. It shall be open to the learned MM concerned to decide the order in which the eases should be proceeded. . i'
The petitions stand disposed ofin the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI,J JANUARY 09,2017 sr
JUDGMENT