$~19

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 09^th April, 2015

+

CRL.M.C. 1256/2015 & Crl.M.A.4596-97/2015

MOHAN LAL SACHDEVA

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Deepak Kohli, Advocate

versus

JITENDER KUMAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Nemo

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

O R D E R

%

(O R A L)

Quashing of criminal complaint No.317/1/13 under Section 138 of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the order of 16^th April, 2013 vide

which petitioner has been summoned as an accused and the order of 15^th

April, 2014 vide which Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has been

framed against petitioner is sought on the ground that petitioner had not

signed the dishonoured cheque in question and no document was

executed by petitioner and so his prosecution in the criminal complaint in

question is totally unwarranted. To submit so, reliance was placed by

petitioner’s counsel upon decisions in N.K.Wahi v. Shekhar Singh & Ors.

2007 (1) JCC (NI) 112, National Small Industries Corp. Ltd. v. Harmeet

2015:DHC:3234

Industries Ltd. (2013) 201 DLT 461.

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders, copy of

complaint in question and the decisions cited, I find that there are specific

averments in the complaint in question that petitioner is involved in day-

to-day affairs of accused company and has considerable experience in

handling accounts of loan transaction and most of the time petitioner and

his co-accused used to inform the respondent-complainant about the

ledger balance as well as how much money is required by them for a

particular period. Upon considering the afore-referred decisions, this

Court finds that necessary averments are there in the complaint to justify

framing of Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. against petitioner.

However, the merits of the contents of the complaint in question are not

required to be commented upon at this stage as the complaint is not

supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire case put up by respondent-

complainant. The details of the exact role played by petitioner in day-to-

day affairs is an aspect, which can be brought out in the cross

examination of the respondent-complainant. During the course of

hearing, it was brought to notice of this Court that cross examination of

complainant is to take place on 14^th April, 2015. It is during the cross

examination of respondent-complainant that such minute details can be

brought on record. At this stage, it would be suffice to note that there are

averments in the complaint regarding petitioner-accused being

responsible for day-to-day affairs of the accused company.

In the considered opinion of this Court, no case of quashing of

complaint in question and impugned orders is made out. The petition and

2015:DHC:3234

the application are disposed of with liberty to urge the pleas taken herein

before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

(SUNIL GAUR)

Judge

APRIL 09, 2015

vn

2015:DHC:3234