Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
I.S. MEHTA, J.
VIPIN KUMAR – PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF DELHI AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRL.M.C. 5084 of 2015 and Crl.M.A. No. 18321 of 2015
Decided On : 03-11-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shiv Chopra, Mr. Mayank Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, Mr. Manoj Ohri, Mr. Rahul Sharma
The court emphasized the need for judicious exercise of discretion in admitting additional evidence, ensuring it is essential to the just decision of the case.
Headnote:
Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Quashing of order - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138/141 - Additional documents - Court's discretion in admitting additional evidence
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of an order passed by the Civil Judge, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi in a case filed under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The respondent company filed a complaint against the accused persons for dishonoring cheques. The petitioner, as an additional director of the accused company, was summoned and subsequently, the respondent sought to place additional documents on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's application to place additional documents on record was relevant for the just decision of the case and did not cause prejudice to the accused. The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the order, stating that the additional documents were pertinent to determining the petitioner's involvement in the company's affairs.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of additional documents at the stage of trial and the petitioner's objection to the same.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discretion to admit additional evidence should be exercised judiciously and for strong and valid reasons, ensuring that it is essential to the just decision of the case. The court emphasized the need to determine the truth and render a just decision by obtaining proper proof of relevant facts.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the lower court's order, and disposed of all pending applications.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
1. Instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner-Vipin Kumar seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi in CC. No. 14/2013.
2. Brief facts as per the complaint are that the respondent No.2- Ark Fluid System Components Pvt. Ltd. is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at F-7B, Okhla Industrial Area-I, New Delhi. The said respondent No.2 through its Director-Ajay Kashyap filed a complaint before the Court of Learned ACMM, Saket, New Delhi under Sections 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the accused persons, i.e. (1) DD Global Capital Ltd., (2) Sanjay Gambhir, (3) Narender Kumar, (4) Tarun Kumar and (5) Vipin Kumar (petitioner herein). The said DD Global Capital Ltd. is a family holding company which was previously known as DD Township Ltd. and the petitioner is the Additional Director of DD Global Capital Limited w.e.f. 01.02.2011.
3. It is alleged in the complaint that the Director of the respondent No.2/complainant- Company is well know to the Sanjay Gambhir-accused No.2 and the said accused person requested for grant of friendly loan, which request was acceded by extending loan by the respondent No.2/complainant for an amount of Rs. 10.05 crore vide banking transactions dated 12.12.2007, 19.12.2007 and 21.01.2009 for the amount of Rs. 40 lacs, Rs. 40 lacs and Rs. 25 lacs respectively which is duly reflected in the account book of the DD Global Capital Ltd.-accused No.1. The said amount so paid as a friendly loan was agreed and promised to be refundable after one year however, the said amounts have not been repaid.
4. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused No.5/petitioner herein looks after the day to day working of the accused No.1/company relating to its legal affair, finances, sale of property and other aspects of it. Further, on repeated requests and demands the accused No.1-DD Township Ltd. issued four post dated cheques, i.e. (i) cheque No. 818258 dated 25.05.2011 of Rs. 30,00,000/-, (ii) cheque No. 818259 dated 05.06.2011 of Rs. 25,00,000/-, (iii) cheque No. 818260 dated 15.06.2011 of Rs. 25,00,000/- and (iv) cheque No. 818261 dated 25.06.2011 of Rs. 25,00,000/-, all drawn on Indian Overseas Bank with its branch at B-226, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi with assurance that the cheques would be encashed on its first presentation.
5. Thereafter, when the said cheques were presented for encashment by the respondent No.2/complainant through its banker, i.e. Corporation Bank, GK-II, New Delhi, all the said four cheques were dishonoured vide return memo dated 09.11.2011 with remarks "stop payment". On this the respondent No.2/complainant issued legal demand notice dated 02.12.2011 to the accused persons and when the accused persons failed to repay/refund the respondent No.2/complainant, on 24.01.2012 the respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint under Sections 138/141 NI Act before the Court of ACMM, Saket, New Delhi being CC. No. 14/2013.
6. Subsequently, vide order dated 24.01.2012 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons qua the petitioner and the other accused persons.
7. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a revision petition being Crl. Rev. P. No.18/13 before the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 21.07.2014 dismissed the said revision petition. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by the learned Sessions Court before this Court in Crl. M.C. 5507/2014 and this Court held that the petitioner can raise all the issues before the Trial court at the stage of framing of notice.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent No.2/complainant on 05.03.2015 moved an application for placing additional documents on record as those documents were not filed initially in the complaint as t
