$~27 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 16.02.2024 + CRL.M.C. 5884/2022 & CRL.M.A. 23086/2022 VIJENDRA NATH GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Harsh Khanna, Mr.Vivek Jain, Mr.Sandeep Khanna, Ms.Aastha Tiwari, Ms.Tulsi Mukhi, Mr.Raj Kumar Goel, Advs. versus THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.

..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, APP with ASI Mukesh Kumar.

Mr.Anurag Jain, Adv.for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking quashing of the judgment and order dated 28.09.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), passed by the learned Special Judge,(NDPS)- 02/Additional Sessions Judge (Central-District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Revision Court’) in Criminal Revision No.246/2022, titled as Vijender Nath Gupta v. State & Anr., whereby the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 5884/2022 Page 1 of 6

2. The said Revision Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 02.04.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-05 (NI Act), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Metropolitan Magistrate’) in the Complaint Case No.533060/2016 filed by the respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short, ‘NI Act’), titled as S. Raghbir Singh v. Vijendra Nath Gupta

3. The above order has been passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate holding that the application filed by the petitioner herein under Section 340 Cr.P.C. shall be considered alongwith the final arguments in the complaint filed by the respondent herein and the decision on the same shall be rendered alongwith or after the judgment in the said complaint case.

4. The facts in brief giving rise to the present petition are that the respondent has filed the above complaint, stating that he had extended a friendly loan of a sum of Rs.1 crore to the petitioner, who in discharge of the same has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1 crore. The cheque on presentation had been returned unpaid.

5. During the course of cross-examination of the respondent, he was asked about the source of the funds for the loan. He deposed that there was an Agreement to Sell dated 29.08.2012 (Ex.CW1-D/3) executed between himself and a buyer namely Mr.Sanjeev Chauhan. He stated that the buyer namely Mr.Sanjeev Chauhan had given the said money as advance money against the sale of the property to the respondent.

6. The petitioner, claiming that the said Agreement to Sell Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 5884/2022 Page 2 of 6 produced by the respondent is a forged and fabricated document, filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It was the case of the petitioner that the said Agreement to Sell has been prepared on a stamp paper which was sold almost a year after the date of the Agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that evidence in support of this plea has also been led before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.

7. The petitioner then insisted that his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be considered and decided before the final adjudication of the complaint filed by the respondent. The said prayer, however, was rejected by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 02.04.2022, holding that it would be more appropriate to hear the application of the petitioner alongside final argument so that the Court would be in a better position to adjudge if a prima facie case is made out against the non-applicant / complainant and to adjudge the effect of the alleged forged and fabricated document upon the administration of justice. The learned Trial Court observed as under:

“........Thus, this court holds that the argument