Delhi District Court
Sh. Gurjeet Kaur Saini vs Sh. Suresh Kumar on 4 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH AJAY GUPTA: ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE-4 (SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA COURTS , DELHI
Cr. Revision No. : 32/14
UID NO .
02402R0207972014
In the matter of
Sh. Gurjeet Kaur Saini
S/o Late Sh. Gurjeet Saini
R/o, C-18/G, Vijeta Vihar,
Police Colony, Sector-13,
Rohini, Delhi. ..... Revisionist
versus
Sh. Suresh Kumar
R/o D-61/7, First Floor,
Dilshad Garden
Delhi-95 ..... Respondent
Date of Institution :15.07.2014
Final arguments heard :24.01.2015
Date of order :04.02.2015
Decision :DISMISSED
JUDGEMENT
1. The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 16.04.2014 passed by Ms. Susheel Bala Dagar, Ld. M.M, Shahdara, KKD, Delhi, in the complaint case bearing CC No. 457/13, titled as Suresh Kumar vs. Gurjeet Kaur Saini. Vide aforesaid order Ld.M.M. has allowed the condonation of delay application filed by the complainant seeking condonation of one week's delay in filing the criminal complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter to be referred as N.I Act).
2. The brief facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the Cr. Revision No. 32/14 Gurjeet Kaur Saini vs State Page 1/5 present revision petition as stated in the complaint are that the respondent (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as accused) u/s 138 N.I Act on the ground that he had given a friendly loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the accused and to discharge her liability, the accused issued two cheques which got dishonoured as the account had been closed by the accused. Thereafter, complainant issued a legal notice to the accused on 30.03.2013 but accused failed to pay the amount of dishonoured cheque. Thus, complainant filed the aforesaid criminal complaint against the accused on 24.05.2013.
3. There was a delay of one week in filing the criminal complaint thus, alongwith complaint, complainant filed an application seeking condonation of delay on the ground that he was unwell from 16.05.2013 to 23.05.2013 and due to this he was advised complete bed rest during this period.
4. The accused contested the condonation of delay application by filing a reply.
5. Ld. trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing submissions of both the sides allowed condonation of delay application.
6. Now the accused / petitioner has filed the present the present petition assailing the order passed by Ld. MM, allowing the condonation of delay application, mainly on the following grounds:-
(1) that complainant failed to show that he had visited the doctor on 16.05.2013 as he did not file the prescription slip alongwith the application. If the complainant had the prescription slip he would Cr. Revision No. 32/14 Gurjeet Kaur Saini vs State Page 2/5 have filed the same alongwith application. (2) that complainant filed the prescription slip after one year i.e. on 16.04.2014 and the prescription slip should have been an old paper, however, it was new and shows that complainant obtained the same after learned trial court directed the complainant to produce the prescription slip. (3) that prescription slip do not bear the stamp of the doctor though the medical certificate bears the same, thus, learned trial court should have called the concerned doctor as well as his record to verify the genuineness of the prescription slip. (4) that the condonation of delay was allowed in mechanical manner though the medical certificate filed alongwith the application was a doubtful one. (5) that there was a cutting on the medical certificate which was not initialed by the concerned doctor.
Thus there was a foul play in the matter.
7. I have heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. Addl. P.P for the state and gone through the trial court record of the case.
8. The complainant sought condonation of delay on the ground of his illness. Complainant had initially filed a medical certificate in this regard and Ld. trial court later on directed the complainant to also file prescription slip to verify the medical certificate when the objection was raised by the accused in this regard. Ld. trial court after considering the medical prescription as well as medical certificate and after hearing the submissions of both the side allowed the condonation of delay application and condoned one week delay in filing the appeal.
Cr. Revision No. 32/14 Gurjeet Kaur Saini vs State Page 3/59. The accused has claimed a foul play in regard to medical certificate and medical prescription filed by the complainant mainly on two grounds. Firstly, accused has claimed that the prescription has been obtained by the complainant only after the directions issued by the learned trial court and secondly the medical prescription of the doctor does not bear his stamp. It is also contended that the prescription slip appears to be a new document and only procured after the direction of the court.
10.This court does not find any substance in this contention of the accused as it is clear from the medical certificate that he was suffering from low back pain and advised complete bed rest from 16.05.2013 to 24.05.2013. The medical certificate can not be doubted merely for the reason of non filing of the medical prescription by the complainant alongwith medical certificate. Furthermore, the prescription of 16.05.2013 was also produced by the complainant on the direction of the learned trial court which also supports the medical certificate. The prescription does not appear to be a new document as contended by the accused. Further more, it is a common practice that medical prescription is normally not issued with a stamp / seal of the doctor. Therefore, the genuineness of the medical prescription can not be doubted on account of its not bearing the stamp of the doctor.
11.This court doesn't find any gross negligence or intentional delay or lack of bonafides on the part of the complainant in filing the complainant with some delay. It cannot be assumed that the complainant would jeopardize his legal right by not filing the complaint within limitation. The complainant has mentioned the sufficient cause for delay in filing the complaint Cr. Revision No. 32/14 Gurjeet Kaur Saini vs State Page 4/5 which is duly supported by the medical prescription as well as medical certificate, Since there does not appear to be any foul play on the part of complainant, hence, learned trial court was justified in not summoning the concerned doctor or the record pertaining to the medical prescription and medical certificate of the complainant.
12.In view of these discussions it is held that learned trial court has rightly allowed the condonation of delay application of the complainant. As such, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
13.Before parting with the present order it is also pertinent to mention here that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the same is not accompanied with the certified copy of the impugned order.
14.TCR be sent alongwith copy of this order.
15.Revision file be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open
Court on 04.02.2015) (Ajay Gupta)
Addl. Sessions Judge-04
(Shahdara), KKD Courts,Delhi.
Cr. Revision No. 32/14
Gurjeet Kaur Saini vs State Page 5/5