CRL.M.C. Nos. 5211, 5217 & 5291/2006

Page 1 of 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.M.C. 5211/2006, CRL.M.C. 5217/2006 CRL.M.C. 5291/2006

21.

CRL.M.C. 5211/2006 & CRL. M.A. No.8864/2006

Date of order : 13^th March, 2008

RAVI CHOPRA

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Advocate with

Mr. Ujjwal K. Jha, Advocate

versus

STATE & ANOTHER

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

Mr. Pawan Behl, APP

WITH

22.

CRL.M.C. 5217/2006 & CRL. M.A. No.8877/2006

RAVI CHOPRA

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Advocate with

Mr. Ujjwal K. Jha, Advocate

versus

STATE & ANOTHER ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

Mr. Pawan Behl, APP

AND

23.

CRL.M.C. 5291/2006 & CRL. M.A. No.8961/2006

RAVI CHOPRA

..... Petitioner

Through:Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Advocate with

Mr. Ujjwal K. Jha, Advocate

versus

STATE & ANOTHER

..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Amrit Kaur Oberoi, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

Mr. Pawan Behl, APP

CRL.M.C. Nos. 5211, 5217 & 5291/2006

Page 2 of 20

O R D E R

CORAM:

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported

Yes

in Digest?

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J (open court)

1. These petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 („CrPC‟) seek to challenge an order dated 18^th July, 2006 passed by the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate („MM‟) rejecting an application filed by the

Petitioner for sending the dishonoured cheques, in respect of which the

complaint cases were filed against the Petitioner for the offences under

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 („NI Act‟), to the

Central Forensic Science Laboratory („CFSL‟) for its opinion on the

handwriting on the cheques.

2. The cheques in question are Nos. 836720, 445534 and 752076 all dated 1^st

May, 2004 for a sum of Rs. 1 lakh each in respect of which Complaint Case

No. 339 of 2004 was filed, Nos. 328114 dated 11^th May, 2004 for a sum of

Rs.2 lakhs and No. 520660 dated 11^th May, 2004 for a sum of Rs.1 lakh in

respect of which Complaint Case No. 340 of 2004 was filed, and Nos.

752064 and 555267 both dated 7^th May, 2004 for a sum of Rs.1 lakh each in

respect of which Complaint Case No. 341 of 2004 was filed. The aggregate

sum of all these cheques is Rs.8 lakhs. The case of the complainant is that

on different dates from 2000 to 2003 the Petitioner accused took a loan of

CRL.M.C. Nos. 5211, 5217 & 5291/2006

Page 3 of 20

Rs.8 lakhs and issued the aforementioned cheques towards his liability for

repayment of the loans. All the cheques were drawn on Punjab National

Bank („PNB‟), Tolstoy House, New Delhi. Some of the cheques when

presented returned dishonoured with the remarks “account closed” and some

others on the ground “funds insufficient”. Despite the complainant sending

notices demanding payment, the Petitioner did not make payment within the

statutory period.

3. At the trial after the complainant‟s evidence was recorded the petitioner

examined himself as a defence witness and filed an affidavit by way of

examination-in-chief. The stand taken in his affidavit was that the Petitioner

was working as an officer in PNB. He was introduced to the complainant in

the year 1997 by the brother-in-law of the complainant who was a col