W.P. (CRL.) 557/2023

Page 1 of 15

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 10.07.2023

Pronounced on: 12.10.2023

+

W.P. (CRL.) 557/2023& CRL.M.A. 5086/2023

SIDDHARTH DUGGAL

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Varun Tyagi and Mr.

Bharat

Gupta,

Advocates

alongwith petitioner

versus

STATE (GOVT, OF NCT OF DELHI)

& ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Ms. Nandita Rao, ASC for the

State along with Mr. Amit

Peswani and Mr. Saransh,

Advocates

Mr. Naman Joshi, Ms. Ritika

Vohra, Mr. Guneet Sidhu, Mr.

Rohan

Agarwal

and

Mr.

Anirudh Singh, Advocates for

R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner seeks following reliefs:

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:14.10.2023

12:08:12

Signature Not Verified

W.P. (CRL.) 557/2023

Page 2 of 15

i.setting aside of order dated 17.10.2019 passed by learned

Metropolitan

Magistrate-05,Patiala

House

Courts,

Delhi(‘learned Magistrate’)in Complaint CaseNo. 4157/2016,

as well as order dated 23.01.2023 passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge-07,Patiala House Courts, Delhi (‘learned

ASJ’)in Criminal Revision Petition No. 106/2020 dismissing the

revision petition filed by the petitioner;

ii.allowing the application filed by petitioner under Section 243

read with Section 293 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 and 73 of

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 seeking examination of the cheque

in question by Government Scientific Expert and another

application seeking summoning of the witnesses as mentioned

in the application.

2.

The factual background of the present case, in brief, is that

respondent no. 2/complainant „M/s. Rakesh Press‟ had filed a complaint

under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI Act’)

whereby it was stated that the complainant was engaged in the business

of printing books, magazines and other periodicals for respondent no.

3/accused i.e. „M/s. Duggals Print House‟, a sole proprietorship

concern, and as on 02.07.2014, there was an outstanding balance to the

tune of Rs.11,08,802/- against respondent no. 3. It was alleged that

towards the said liability, the sole proprietor of respondent no. 3 i.e. Mr

Siddharth Duggal (petitioner herein)had acknowledged his liability as

on 31.03.2016 and letters were also exchanged between the

complainant and the accused. Eventually, as alleged, a cheque bearing

no. 166360 dated 17.08.2016 of Rs.2,00,000/- drawn on Union Bank of

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:14.10.2023

12:08:12

Signature Not Verified

W.P. (CRL.) 557/2023

Page 3 of 15

India,Rajouri Garden branch, New Delhi was issued towards discharge

of liability of respondent no. 3 as part-payment and the petitioner had

assured respondent no. 2 that he would clear the outstanding dues.

However, upon presentation of the cheque, the same had got

dishonoured vide return memo dated 19.08.2016 with remarks

“Account Closed/Transferred To”. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 had

issued legal notice calling upon the accused persons to make the

payment of cheque amount and upon their failure to do so, the present

complaint case was filed before Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on

20.10.2016.

3.

Pursuant to filing of complaint case, the petitioner was

summoned vide order dated 20.10.2016, and notice under Section 251

Cr.P.C. was framed against him on 06.03.2018. Thereafter, the

complainant/respondent no. 2 was examined and discharged on

02.07.2018 and the statement of petitioner was recorded on 05.07.2018

under Section 313of Cr.P.C.On 23.07.2018, the petitioner had moved

two applications before the learned Magistrate, the first application

being filed under Section 243 read with Section 293 of Cr.P.C. read

with Section 45/73 of Indian Evidence Act, 187