Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
Nishant Gangwani S/o Dilip Kumar Gangwani - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate and ors. - Respondents
CRMP No. 1019 of 2024
Decided On : 17-09-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Revision petition challenging the order of the Revisional Court which set aside the trial Court's order allowing the examination of witnesses – The petitioner, a partner of a firm, contended that the cheques were drawn in the firm's name and the trial Court's order was justified under Section 311 CrPC – The Revisional Court's order was found to be legal and not perverse. (Paras 1, 3, 14)
(B) Interlocutory Orders – The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be invoked to challenge interlocutory orders as per the principles laid down in various Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 10, 12)
Facts of the case: The petitioner borrowed Rs.15,21,600/- from the complainant and returned Rs.10,36,600/-. For the remaining amount, he issued three cheques which were dishonored, leading to a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court allowed the examination of witnesses, which was later set aside by the Revisional Court.
Findings of Court: The acknowledgment by the petitioner confirmed his status as proprietor of the firm, and the trial Court's decision was upheld as lawful.
Issues: Whether the Revisional Court erred in setting aside the trial Court's order allowing witness examination and the applicability of Section 482 in interlocutory matters.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Revisional Court's order was not illegal or perverse, and the inherent powers under Section 482 cannot be used to challenge interlocutory orders.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC challenging the impugned order dated 14.03.2024 (Annexure A- 1) passed in Revision Case No.22/2024 by which learned Additional Session Judge/Special Judge of Special Court for trial of CBI cases, Raipur, has allowed the revision filed by respondent No.2/complainant and set aside the order 29.12.2023 passed by learned JMFC, Raipur.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of this petition is that the petitioner is partner of M/s Neha Footwear (Partnership firm) and has duly registered having its active GST number. In the year 2016-2017, petitioner had borrowed sum of Rs.15,21,600/- from respondent No.2/complainant for the purpose of business. Subsequently, petitioner has returned sum of Rs.10,36,600/- alongwith interest. However, for the rest amount ie Rs.4,85,000/-, petitioner has given three cheques of his firm dated 13.07.2017, 28.07.2017, 10.08.2017 as well as gold as a security to respondent No.2. Subsequently on depositing the entire amount to respondent No.2, when petitioner asked for returning of Cheques and Gold, respondent No.2 with malafide intention presented the cheques for disbursement and when the cheques was dishonored, he initiated the proceedings against the petitioner under the Negotiable Instrument Act. Complaint case filed by respondent No.2 was registered as Complaint Case No.4402/2017 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in which during trial statements of the parties were recorded. However, importance witnesses of the petitioner were not examined and the matter was closed for defence evidence on 26/08/2023 and, thereafter, list for final hearing. It is also alleged that respondent No.2 has malafidely implicated the petitioner by falsely stating that petitioner was the sole proprietor of M/s Neha Footwear firm. To bring the peculiar facts, on 05/09/2023 petitioner moved an application under Sections 311 & 315 of Cr.P.C for examination of Manager of concerned Bank as also of himself. After hearing both the parties, trial Court vide order dated 29/12/2023 (Annexure P/3) has allowed the application of petitioner holding that nothing prejudice will be caused to objector/respondent No.2 on allowing the application. Being aggrieved by order dated 29/12/2023, respondent No.2 filed revision application before the Revisional Court which came to be allowed on 14.03.2024 and order of trial Court has been set aside. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by learned Revisional Court is illegal, perverse and contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and law laid down by the Apex Court, hence liable to be set aside. Complaint filed by respondent No.2 is not relating to the present petitioner as the Cheques were drawn in the name of the Partnership Firm. He further submits that application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., for examination of witnesses, were the orders of interlocutory nature, in which, revision is not maintainable. The application was moved under Sections 311 & 315 of Cr.P.C for examination of concerned Bank Manager as also of himself in order to bring on record correct facts and circumstances and also material for just disposal of the trial. Trial Court has vide power under Section 311 CrPC to examine or recall and re-examine any such person if his evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case at any time, therefore, trial Court has rightly allowed the application filed by the petitioner. However, learned Revisional Court vide impugned order has erroneously set aside the order of trial Court. Rejection of application in the given facts and circumstances of the case would amount to failure of justice and it would also amount to abuse of process of the Court. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon order dated 11.11.2022 passed by this Court in CRR No.1121/2022 (Xyz Nil vs State of Chhattisgarh & Anr) as also t
AI
The inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be invoked to challenge interlocutory orders, and the Revisional Court's decision was upheld as lawful.
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.
A cheque issued for repayment establishes liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; the burden to rebut the presumption of liability lies with the accused, who failed to provide sufficient evidenc....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the prohibition against filing a second revision petition under the garb of Section 482 CrPC, as well as the need for expeditious disposal of cases....
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to provide sufficient evidence to rebut such presumption, which the petitioners failed to do.
The dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act constitutes a criminal offence, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a valid defence against the allega....
The presumption of dishonor under Section 138 can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant to prove the existence of enforceable debt.
NI Act s.139 presumption rebutted by evidence of prior unpaid loans, pending litigations, and improbability of further advance; revisional jurisdiction under CrPC s.397 limited to perversity or ignor....
The failure of the complainant to tender for further cross-examination led to the discarding of his evidence, which invalidated the judgments of conviction.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
