Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
Manmohan Singh, J.
M/s. Radlay Metal Products Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. —Petitioners
versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. —Respondents
CRL.M.C. Nos.388 to 395 of 2015 & Crl. M.A. No.1520, 1522, 1524, 1526, 1528, 1532, 1536 of 2015
Decided on 17.3.2015
For the Petitioners:Mr.Tannmaya Mehta, Advocate with Mr.Rakesh Malhotra & Mr.S.C.Verma, Advocates
For the Respondent/State: Mr.M.P.Singh, APP
For the Respondent No.2:Mr.Amit Sibal, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Tanwar Mir & Mr.Govind Rishi, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by Cr.P.C.
Headnote:Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 482—Dishonour of cheque—Quashing petition—Cheques in question have been signed and all other particulars were also filled by petitioners except dates—Revisional Court dismissed petitions of petitioners—Second Revision did not lie to High Court in view of provisions of Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C.—Section 397(3) bars second revision application by same party—Inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by Cr.P.C.—However, if there is grave miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court or required procedure has not been complied with by Metropolitan Magistrate, High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can correct grave miscarriage of justice under special circumstances—Trial Court directed to decide complaints expeditiously. (Paras 9, 15 to 18)
Result: Quashing Petitions dismissed.
Manmohan Singh, J.—By this order, I propose to decide all the above 7 petitions filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting-aside the order dated 23rd January, 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC(West), Tis Hazari, Delhi, in Criminal Revision Nos.02/2015, 03/2015, 04/2015, 05/2015, 06/2015, 07/2015 & 08/2015.
2. The facts of the matter are that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioners, alleging that they have committed an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) due to dishonour of cheques. It is the case of the said respondent that all the cheques were issued as post-dated cheques and petitioner No.2 assured and promised that they have issued PDC for each of the consignments and the same would be honoured on the date of presentation.
3. The Trial Court summoned the petitioners. Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act was issued. Thereafter, the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2 was recorded. The statement of the petitioners and then the defence evidence was recorded. The petitioners examined Mr.Naresh Kakkar as DW-1, Mr.Vir Pal Singh as DW-2, Mr.Vikas Sehrawat as DW-3, Mr.Pradeep Raikhi as DW-4, Mr.Kamal Ahuja as DW-5 and Mr.Narender Singh as DW-5.
4. When the matters were at the final stage, the applications for leading further evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872 were filed on behalf of the petitioners, to call the Handwriting Expert. In the applications, it was stated by the petitioners that the cheques in question were handed over to respondent No.2 as “undated Advanced Security Cheques”; those were not the post-dated cheques and since the handwriting difference on the cheques between ‘handwriting of date on the cheque’ as compared to ‘handwriting on the body of the cheque’ is apparent on all the cheques, the petitioners wanted to call the handwriting expert in support of their case.
5. The prayer made in the applications was not allowed by the Trial Court on the reasons given in the common order dated 24th December, 2014. The relevant extracts of the said order, while dismissing the above said applications reads as under:-
“In so far as the application for examination of handwriting on the cheques is concerned, again I do not see merit in the submission of the accused. The accused has already admitted his signatures on the cheques in question and even other particulars except the date. The defence is that the cheques in question were undated security cheques in which the date was filled by the complainant. It is also not in dispute that the cheques in question were given by the accused to the complainant. Thus the manner in which the cheques in question came into the possession of the complainant is also not suspect. It is established law that the holder of a cheque has authority to fill its particulars and the accused has the liberty to establish his contention that the cheques were in fact security cheques by adducing other relevant evidence. Reliance is placed upon the judgment in Ravi Chopra vs State & Anr., Crl. M.C. 5211/2006 & Crl. M.A. No. 8864/2006, wherein it was held that “where the accused facing the trial for the offence u/s 138 is disputing the signature on the cheque itself, then this is a permissible defence within the scope of Section 138 of NI Act but where the signature are admitted, although the cheques are issued in blank there is a implied authority given to the payee to fill up the instrument. Section 20 of NI Act also say so. Hence, there is no requirement for sending the cheque for the opinion of handwriting expert for proving the same. Numerous situations can be thought of where the handwriting and the ink can differ. For instance when an entire cheque is typed as to its material particulars, and the signature is in the handwriting of the drawer, such cheque and hardly be said to be void for that rea
