Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Amritpal Singh - Appellant
Versus
Rahul Ahuja - Respondent
CRM-M No. 9295-2020
Decided On : 06-03-2020
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure Code - Negotiable Instruments Act - 143, 259 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 143 and 259 of the N.I. Act and the Cr.P.C. regarding the power of the court to try cases summarily and to convert summons cases into warrant cases. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases and the circumstances under which a trial can be converted from a summons case to a warrant case. The court also considered the petitioner's arguments for conversion and the respondent's arguments against it, ultimately finding no grounds for conversion and upholding the lower court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner-accused for dishonoring a cheque. The petitioner-accused sought to convert the trial from a summons case to a warrant case, citing the civil nature of the dispute and the need for extensive evidence and witnesses. The respondent opposed the conversion, arguing that the petitioner had delayed the proceedings and had ample opportunity to present a defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had engaged in dilatory tactics to delay the proceedings and had not provided sufficient grounds for conversion. The court noted that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present a defense and that converting the trial to a warrant case would cause unnecessary delay. Therefore, the court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's application for conversion.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial should be converted from a summons case to a warrant case based on the nature of the dispute and the need for extensive evidence and witnesses. The court also considered the petitioner's delay tactics and the impact of conversion on the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's delay tactics and lack of sufficient grounds for conversion did not warrant interference with the lower court's decision. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases and found that the petitioner had ample opportunity to present a defense.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the lower court's decision to deny the conversion of the trial from a summons case to a warrant case was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral). - The petitioner-accused has filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C) for setting aside order dated 01.10.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in COMA No. 2589 of 2014 titled as "Rahul Ahuja Vs. Amritpal Singh" filed by the respondent-complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.I. Act') whereby application filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for converting the trial of the above mentioned complaint case from summons case to warrant case was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of the present petition are that the respondent-complainant filed above said complaint on the averments that the petitioner-accused executed agreement to sell dated 01.11.2013 agreeing to sell the property described therein for a sale consideration of Rs. 9,25,00,000/- by furnishing power of attorney from Krishan Singh Jagdev, owner of l/3 rd share and having authority and consent of Kovalam Investment and Trading Company Limited, owner of 2/3 rd share, to sell the property. The petitioner-accused received amount of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- from the respondent-complainant and on his instructions amount of Rs. 4,00,00,000/- was paid to Kovalam Investment and Trading Company Limited. The Sale Deed was to be executed on or before 15.12.2013. The petitioner-accused agreed to pay total amount of Rs.5,50,00,000/- (Rs. 5,25,00,000/- as refund of earnest money and Rs. 25,00,000/- as damages) in case of his failure to get the Sale Deed executed by 15.12.2013 and also issued post dated cheque dated 16.12.2013. Since the petitioner-accused failed to get the sale deed executed, the respondent-complainant presented the cheque. The petitioner-accused in connivance with the Bank got the cheque dishonoured vide memo dated 26.02.2014 with the remarks "DRAWERS SIGNATURES DIFFERS" whereas there was no sufficient balance in his account. The respondent-complainant served legal notice dated 22.03.2014 to which the petitioner-accused sent reply dated 05.04.2014. Preliminary evidence of the respondent-complainant was recorded and the petitioner-accused was summoned to face trial. During pendency of the trial, the petitioner-accused filed application under Section 259 of the Cr.P.C. for converting of the trial from summons case to warrant case which was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class vide impugned order dated 01.10.2019.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-accused has filed the present petition.
4. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondent-complainant who appeared through Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate.
5. I have heard Mr. H.S. Brar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused and Mr. Gurcharan Dass, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant and gone through the relevant record carefully.
6. Mr. H.S. Brar, learned Counsel for the petitioner-accused has argued that the cheque in question was given only as security and there was no enforceable legal liability. The respondent-complainant had taken possession of the property in question from the petitioner-accused and the Sale Deed of property in question was executed by Kovalam Investment and Trading Company Limited in favour of Sumesh Chadha as nominee of the respondent-complainant but at the same time the respondent-complainant is claiming the cheque amount. The case involves dispute of civil nature regarding performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.11.2013. Several documents relating to tri-parte agreement are required to be produced and several witnesses have to be examined in defence which is not possible in summary trial. The trial of the present case ought to have been converted from summons case to warrant case. No prejudice will be caused to the respondent-complainant if the case is tried as warrant case whereas the petitioner-accused
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
