Delhi District Court
Girish Bhatia vs Prama Bhandari on 23 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF MS NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SOUTH EAST : SAKET COURT, NEW DELHI.
Cr. REVISION NOs. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020
Girish Bhatia
S/o Late Sh. Pran Nath Bhatia
R/o 1029, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar
Delhi110009
Email: [email protected] ... REVISIONIST
VERSUS
Prama Bhandari
W/o Late Ranji Bhandari
R/o 8, Padmani Enclave
New Delhi110016
...RESPONDENT
Date of filing : 27.10.2020
First date before this court : 02.11.2020
Date of Decision : 23.02.2021
ORDER
1. By this common order, I shall be disposing of the above mentioned three revision petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. filed against the joint order dated 04.09.2020 made under Section 138 NI Act granting interim compensation under Section 143A NI Act in the sum of Rs.3 lacs in each case.
2. Facts in brief are that three complaint cases have been CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 1 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari filed against the revisionist under Section 138 NI Act. Learned MM has directed payment of interim compensation in the sum of Rs.9,00,000/ together in the three cases (Rs.3,00,000/ in each case) under Section 143A NI Act. It is asserted that this order is badin law and is liable to be set aside.
3. It is submitted in the revision petition that the petitioner is the Director of the accused Company M/s Hana Motors Plaza Pvt. Ltd. and had taken property at A9, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, New Delhi on rent for nine years from 15.07.2015 to 14.07.2024. A security amount of Rs.19,50,000/ was admittedly given to the complainant which is still lying with them. The revisionist gave 12 undated and blank cheques being the Director of the accused Company as security cheques in July, 2018 at which time there was no existing liability. The accused Company came in some financial difficulty in the month of November / December, 2018 and they defaulted in loan payment because of which it was declared NPA in the month of January and all its accounts were directed to be 'debit freeze' as per guidelines issued by RBI. All the bank accounts of the petitioner went in "No Debit" since January / February 2019. The accused allegedly defaulted in payment of lease rent since January 2019 and the complainant altered the security cheques bearing No. 7994, 7995, 7996, 7997, 7998, 7999, 8005, 8006, 8007, 8008, 8009 and 8010 by putting dates and amount without the consent of the petitioner or the other accused persons CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 2 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari and presented them in the bank in January / February 2019. The said cheques were dishonoured for the reason "Debit not allowed". It is submitted that even though there was sufficient balance available in the account of the accused persons but the dishonour was for the reason "debit not allowed" implying that the revisionist had no control over his bank accounts. The dishonour of cheques was not on account of non availability of sufficient funds. The copy of the statement of the revisionist is annexed with the revision.
4. The revisionist has claimed that as per the terms of the lease agreement in case of default of lease rent for three months there was automatic termination of the lease agreement. After the alleged default of rent till March, 2019, there existed no lease agreement and use of security cheques beyond the month of March is illegal and gross misuse of security cheques.
5. The revisionist also claimed that though he was a Director of the Company since 25.05.2015 but had tendered his resignation on 01.02.2019 from the directorship and the copy of ROC giving the details has been annexed. . The accused was not the Director at the time of presentation of cheques and is therefore not liable under S.138 NI Act. For this reliance has been placed on Kulwant Chauhan & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2020 (3) Mh.L.J. CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 3 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari
6. Learned counsel on behalf of the revisionist has further claimed that the complaint under Section 138 NI Act itself is not maintainable as the blank cheques were given towards security which has been misused by the complainant. Moreover, the property has already been vacated in May 2019 and the cheques are not towards any existing liability. Moreover, a security of Rs.19,50,000/ is already available with the complainant which can be adjudicated towards the arrears of rent, if any.
7. Learned counsel for the accused / revisionist has also sought to repel the order on the ground that while making an order under Section 143A NI Act the court is required to give reasons for grant of interim compensation which may be to the extent of 20% of the cheque amount. The learned MM has failed to give any reasons for grant of interim compensation. For this reliance has been placed on LGR Enterprises Vs. P. Anbazhagan Crl. O. P. No. 15438 15440/2019 decided by High Court of Madras on 12.07.2019.
8. It is also argued that the learned MM has failed to appreciate that the present complaint as well as the legal notices have been filed jointly by two complainants wherein Ms. Prama Bhandari was the bearer of cheques bearing No. 8005 to 8010 while Mr. Ranji Bhandari was the bearer of cheques no. 7994 to 7999. The dischonour of each cheque creates an independent cause of action and if the bearer of cheques are different they could not have jointly CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 4 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari given a common notice or file one complaint. It is argued that the present revision in its present form is not maintainable. Learned counsel has relied upon Ambica Plastopack Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. State & Anr. 2013 SCC OnLine Delhi 4416; Unique Infoways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. MPS Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7808; Duncan Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. 2005 SCC OnLine Cal 161; and Nazir Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. MANU/BH/1035/2017.
9. It is argued that the learned MM has failed to appreciate the true facts and the impugned order granting interim compensation under Section 143A NI Act has caused grave failure of justice and is against the proposition of law under Section 143A NI Act and is liable to be set aside.
10. Learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the order under Section 143A NI Act is an interlocutory order as it does not determine any rights and liability of the parties. It is merely for grant of interim compensation and in case the accused is acquitted after the trial the same is liable to be returned. There is no determination of rights or liabilities and no revision against such order is maintainable. It is further argued that there are only two conditions for grant of interim compensation and i.e. framing of notice and plea of not guilty by the accused. For making an order CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 5 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari under Section 143A NI Act, the defence of the accused is not required to be considered. The revisionist has not been able to show any illegality of the order of the learned MM and the revision is liable to be dismissed.
11. Learned counsel for respondent has further argued that even though the reason given for dishonour of cheque was debit freeze but the cause of action was not the dishonor of cheque but issue of legal notice and its non compliance within 15 days of service. The revisionist has failed to comply with the legal notice and pay the due amount for which the cheque was issued and therefore even though the reason for dishonour was frozen account, the complaint is maintainable under Section 138 NI Act. For this reference has been made to Rajat Pharmachem Ltd. & Ors. Vs. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2134; Mahesh Mehta & Ors. Vs. State of Goa 2006 CriLJ 1142 and Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1997 SCC OnLine Del 989.
12. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that all the arguments of the revisionist rest on his defences which are not to be considered at the stage of granting interim compensation. There is no merit in the Revision which is liable to be dismissed.
13. I have heard the arguments and have perused the CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 6 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari record. My observations are as under:
14. An Interim compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/ in each of the three complaints has been granted by the learned MM payable by the revisionist to the respondents/complainant. In order to appreciate the challenge by the Revisionist it would be pertinent to reproduce Section 143A which reads as under:
"143A. Power to direct interim compensation (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant
(a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and
(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.
(2) The interim compensation under sub section(1) shall not exceed twenty per cent of the amount of the cheque.
(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under sub section (1), or within such further period not CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 7 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque.
(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial years, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.
(5) The interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974).
(6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section."
CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 8 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari
15. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the above said amendment provided that there was several representations being received from the public including trading community relating to pendency of cheque dishonor cases. This is because of delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of dishonoured cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay on proceedings. As a result of this, injustice is caused to the payee of a dishonoured cheque who has to spend considerable time and resources in court proceedings to realize the value of the cheque. Such delays compromise the sanctity of cheque transactions. The amendments were thus inserted with a view to address the issue of undue delay in final resolution of cheque dishonour cases so as to provide relief to payees of dishonoured cheques and to discourage frivolous and unnecessary litigation which would save time and money. The amendments are intending to strengthen the credibility of cheques and help trade and commerce in general by allowing lending institutions, including banks, to continue to extend financing to the productive sectors of the economy. The object and purpose of introduction of this section needs to be kept in mind while considering the various contentions raised by the Revisionist.
(A) Revision not maintainable as is against an Interlocutory order.
16. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 9 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari complainant that the order granting interim compensation is essentially interlocutory in nature against which no revision is maintainable under S.397(2) Cr.P. C.
17. The term interlocutory order has been a subject matter of interpretation in various judgments. In Amarnath Nath and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 1977 SC 2185 observed that the term "interlocutory order" has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights, or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affect the right of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties which would invite the bar of exercise of revisional powers under Section 397 (2) of the 1973 CPC. The orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the court.
18. This aspect of import and meaning of interlocutory orders was again considered by the Apex Court in the celebrated judgment of Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47 wherein after making reference to Amaranth's case (supra) observed:
CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 10 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari "In such a situation it appears to us that the real intention of the legislature was not to equate the expression "interlocutory order" as invariably being converse of the words "final order". There may be an order passed during the course of a proceeding which may not be final in the sense noticed in Kuppuswami's case (Supra), but, yet it may not be an interlocutory orderpure or simple. Some kinds of order may fall in between the two. By a rule of harmonious construction, we, think that the bar in subsection (2) of Section 397 is not meant to be attracted to such kinds of intermediate orders. They may not be final orders for the purposes of Article 134 of the Constitution, yet it would not be correct to characterise them as merely interlocutory orders within the meaning of Section 397 (2).
19. In order to understand if an order under S. 143 A (1) is interlocutory it would be pertinent to examine whether it deals with substantive right or is merely procedural. Substantive law refers to body of rules that creates, defines and regulates rights and liabilities while Procedural law establishes a mechanism for determining those rights and liabilities and machinery for enforcing them as was CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 11 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd. vs. Union of India and others 2011(6) SCC 739.
20. Similarly, in Anil Kumar Goel versus Kishan Chand Kaura; 2008(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 290 the Supreme Court observed that all those laws which affect the substantive and vested rights of the parties have to be taken as substantive law, whereas any provision of law dealing with the form of the trial, mechanism of the trial or procedure thereof, has to be treated as procedural in nature.
21. In M/s Ginni Garments and another Vs. M/s Sethi Garments CRR No. 98722018 (O&M) Punjab and Haryana High Court considered this aspect in great detail and gave various reasons why the order under S.143 A was a substantive right. It was explained that the substantive right of a person is the entitlement which may be human rights, constitutional rights or statutory rights. The statutory provisions created by the competent legislature may prescribe certain conditions for crystallizing the substantive right of the person which once fulfilled would become vested right as well. At the same time statute may also prescribe the procedure for protection, determination or regulation of the substantive rights. The procedure would essentially be relating to providing remedy, form of adjudication of such a remedy, procedure to be followed by adjudicatory a forum or the mechanism prescribed for enforcement CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 12 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari of decision of such forum. It was further explained in M/s Ginni Garments (supra) that this provision is not shown to be as a step toward furtherance of the procedure of trial as it does not authorize the Trial Court to pass any order to close the defense qua the steps of the trial in case of non payment of interim compensation. On the contrary, this provision is intended to create a 'stand alone liability' which has to be discharged independent of the trial and which shall have consequences outside the trial only.
22. It was observed in M/s Ginni Garments(supra) that this section has given power to the Trial Court to order payment of interim compensation to the complainant, where the accused has not pleaded guilty of the accusation made against him. Further, if it is not paid within 60 days from the order or within the time, extended by the Court, if any, then the interim compensation shall be recovered under Section 421 Cr.P.C. as if it were a 'fine' imposed upon the accused. Although this Section also provide return of the said amount, in case the accused is acquitted, and for adjustment of the said amount of interim compensation towards final compensation or fine; in case of his conviction, however, till any final order is passed, the accused remains liable for recovery of this amount under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. by attachment and sale of movable and immovable properties of the accused. The same can also be recovered as amounts of arrears of land revenue from CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 13 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari movable or immovable property or both, of the accused. Hence, application of this provision has a drastic effect upon the property rights of the accused, and makes him liable for sale of his properties for recovery of amounts, despite the fact that it is yet to be finally determined whether he is guilty of the offence, and as such liable to pay any compensation to the complainant or not. Since the amended provision provides for enforcement of recovery of interim compensation by way of coercive procedure, it is nothing but an obligation imposed upon the accused. Section 3 of the Specific Relief Act has clarified the meaning of term 'obligation' by defining that any duty enforceable under law is an obligation. Such an 'obligation' having consequences qua the property rights of the accused cannot but be treated as substantive provision effecting his substantive right by casting a substantive obligation upon him, to make the payment of money and if not paid, making him subject to legal deprivation/disability qua his properties. Therefore, it has to be held that Section 143A of the Act cast a substantive obligation upon the accused and thereby affect the substantive right of the accused.
23. In M/s Ginni Garments it was further explained that another reason why the provision of Section 143 A is substantive is that compensation is not to be awarded as a part of sentence. Although, the fine ranging up to twice the amount of the cheque can CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 14 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari be appropriated as compensation in favour of the complainant, however, there is no provision for independently awarding compensation by the Trial Court under the Act. Hence by Section 143 A of the Act, the Trial Court has been permitted to inflict a liability upon accused as an interim measure, although, it cannot pass the order of award of compensation as part of sentence. But this interim measure if enforced through Section 421 Cr.P.C. leads to loss of properties by accused, which is akin to forfeiture of his properties. Hence, essentially the provision enhances the scope and degree of punishment to be awarded to an accused by awarding compensation and then making the same liable to be recovered as a fine. It would be no consolation to the rights of accused to say that the compensation awarded by the Trial Court is only interim measure and that the accused would get the same back with interest if he is acquitted. For a person who is not having means to pay the consequence under this Section on failure to pay 'interim compensation' can be totally devastating, irrecoverable and irreparable.
24. From the above discussion, it is quite evident that an order under Section 143A NI Act granting interim compensation is a stand alone liability which impacts the substantive rights of the parties and is in the nature of punishment and the compensation can be recovered as find under Section 421 Cr.P.C. The order under CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 15 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari Section 143A(1) NI Act is therefore an intermediate order and not an interlocutory order as has been explained in Amarnath vs. State of Haryana & Others (1977) 4 SCC 137 and Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47.
25. The present revision is therefore, maintainable.
(B) Order is bereft of Reasons:
26. An objection has been taken by the learned counsel for the Revisionist that the MM. has failed to pass a reasoned order and is liable to be set aside on this ground itself.
27. The legislature in its wisdom has conferred a discretion upon the court to award upto 20% as interim compensation to the complainant in appropriate cases. This amount can be anything up to 20% depending upon the facts of the case as it would directly affect the fundamental rights of the accused to defend himself in case he is unable to pay. In LGR Enterprises (supra), it was observed that whenever the trial court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 143A (1) NI Act, it shall record reasons as to why it directs the accused person (drawer of the cheque) to pay the interim compensation. The reasons may be varied. For instance, the accused persons would have absconded for a long time and they have CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 16 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari protracted the proceedings or he may have intentionally evaded service for long time and only after repeated attempts, appears before the Court or the enforceable debt or liability in a case, is borne out by overwhelming material which the accused cannot deny on the face of it or where the accused keeps on dragging the proceedings or absconds and his presence is secured only by virtue of NBWs after a long time. It was observed that this list is not exhaustive and it is more illustrative as to the various circumstances under which the trial court will be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 143A (1) of the Act. It was held that the reasons must be given wherein interim compensation under Section 143A (1) because it was subject to challenge before the superior court. A discretionary order without reason is on the face of it illegal and is prone to be set aside on this ground itself.
28. What needs to be considered is whether the order of Ld. MM. discloses any justifiable reasons for granting interim compensation? The cheques pertain to the monthly rents payable for the premises that have been admittedly taken on rent by the accused in 2015 for a period of nine years. It is the case of Revisionist himself that he ran into losses and was unable to pay the rent since 2019. The liability to pay the rent is not challenged. There exists an admitted liability to pay the rent of the tenanted premises. What was proposed was that there is a security of about Rs.19,50,000/ which CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 17 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari can be adjusted towards the rent. However, there is a definite objective of security which is to adjust the outstanding dues or losses/ damage caused to the property at the time of vacating the same. Furthermore, the learned MM has observed in his order that the case has been pending since mid 2019 and only notice has been framed. The trial will take considerable time as the accused has pleaded not guilty to the charge and the application for interim compensation deserves merits. The learned MM has thus given the reasons for granting interim compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/ in each of the cases under Section 143A NI Act. The argument of the revisionist that the order has failed to give any reason is without merit as the reasons for interim compensation are not only spelled out by the learned MM but can also be made out.
(C) Complaint not maintainable as Cheque dishonoured due to "debit not allowed".
29. The learned counsel on behalf of the accused / revisionist has argued that the interim compensation could not have been granted as the complaint itself is not maintainable for the reason that the cheques have been dishonoured on account of "debit not allowed" which does not come under Section 138 NI Act.
30. The judicial pronouncements in Rajesh Meena vs. State of Haryana & others, CRMM145372018 decided on CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 18 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari 01.07.2019 by Punjab & Haryana High Court; Prem Chand Gupta Vs. State & Anr. 2010 (115) DRJ 80 and Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors. (2000) S SCC 745 hold that the complaint under S.138 would not be maintainable where the reason for dishonor was "debit not allowed" but it is a matter of evidence whether the reason was beyond the control of Revisionist or the underlying reason was insufficiency of funds. The revisionist has sought to rely upon his bank statements to establish sufficiency of funds. This is the defence of the revisionist which cannot be looked into at this stage unless proved. The underlying reason for dishonor cannot be determined at this stage and the order of interim compensation cannot be faulted at this stage.
(D) Accused had resigned from Directorship at the time of presentation of cheques.
31. The argument has been raised that the revisionist had resigned from the post of Director prior to the presentation of the cheques and thus cannot be sued under Section 138 NI Act. For this, reliance has been placed on the judgments mentioned above.
32. Ld. counsel for the Complainant/ respondent has rightly argued that this was never taken as a defence by the accused either CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 19 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari in his notice under S.251 Cr. P. C. nor pleaded in his application under S. 145(2) of the Act. Moreover, the only document relied upon by him is a photocopy of the Company Master Data allegedly obtained from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs which is not even supported by a certificate under S.65 -B of the Evidence Act,1872 and is not admissible. Further, S.168 Companies Act, 2013 provides a detailed procedure for the resignation of a Director. The petitioner has not placed on record the Form No.32 or DIR 11 to reveal whether the resignation of the revisionist was accepted by the Board of Directors. The Company Master Data is not uncontroverted and is not of unimpeachable quality.
33. The contention of revisionist not being a Director at the time of presentation of cheque is a defence which has to be proved during the trial. Mere copy of Company Master Data without proper proof cannot be of any assistance to the revisionist to avoid the impugned order. It is a matter of trial and cannot be a ground to avoid payment of interim compensation especially when he was admittedly a Director and signatory to the cheques.
34. Delhi High Court in Major Surender Singh Huda v Kapil Gupta Crl.M.C. 1779/2020 considered similar contentions raised against framing of Notice under S.251 Cr. P. C. and observed that these are matters of defence to be proved at appropriate stage.
CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 20 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari (E) Separate legal notices and separate complaints must be filed against each cheque bearer.
35. An objection has been taken by the revisionist that out of the four cheques two cheques are in the name of respondent and the two cheques are in the name of husband of the respondent. In this context it may be noted that there was one transaction entered into by Ms. Prama Bhandari and her husband Mr. Ranji Bhandari vide lease agreement dated 18.06.2015 to let out the premises on rent to the Company of which revisionist was the Director. The cheques were issued by the revisionist as part of one transaction for which one complaint has been filed. As already noted above whether one complaint case in respect of cheques issued in the name of Ms. Prama Bhandari and Mr. Ranji Bhandari can be filed is again is to be considered during the trial and again is not relevant at this stage of grant of compensation. The revisionist is at liberty to raise all these issues at the appropriate stage of the trial.
(F) Cheques Altered by Respondent
36. A plea has been raised that material alterations have been made in the cheques which were given as security cheques and such an instrument is void under S.87 of the Act. First and foremost, this is a defence which is not to be considered at this stage.
CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 21 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari Secondly, as pointed out, the revisionist in response to Notice under S.251 has admitted his signatures on the cheques and also that the contents were filled up by the accounts official of the company. His own response has shown that no alterations have been made the respondent and this argument is also without merit.
Concluding Remarks
37. The arguments that are being addressed are essentially challenging the framing of notice which are not relevant at this stage while considering grant of compensation under Section 143A(1) NI Act. In Maj. Surendra Kumar Hooda (Retd.) Vs. Kapil Gupta Crl. M. C. 1779/2020 decided by High Court of Delhi on 08.02.2021 it was observed that these issues are subject matter of trial and cannot be considered even at the stage of framing of notice.
38. It may be noted that for making an order under Section 143A NI Act the only two conditions that are required to be satisfied are that (i) in a summary trial or summons case, the notice has been framed and (ii) the accused has pleaded not guilty to the accusations. Rest is all a matter of trial. The cheques being towards the rent for the premises which were admittedly in tenancy of the revisionist cannot be considered to be without any existing legal liability or as security cheques. There is no merit in the present CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 22 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari revision petitions which are hereby dismissed.
39. A copy of this order along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the learned Trial Court. Revision files be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on this 23rd day of February, 2021 (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts New Delhi CR Nos. 282/2020, 283/2020 & 284/2020 Page 23 of 23 pages Girish Bhatia Vs. Prama Bhandari