Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Rajesh Pandey vs M/S Gupta Communication on 2 March, 2020

         IN THE COURT OF SHRI KULDEEP NARAYAN
     ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE­04 : EAST DISTRICT :
            KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI


Cr. Rev No. 244/2019

Rajesh Pandey,
S/o Rajnath Pandey,
R/o 229/29­G, Gali No. 19,
Railway Colony, Mandawali,
Delhi­110092.
                                       ..... Petitioner

Versus

M/s Gupta Communication,
through its proprietor
Subhash Gupta
Head Office:­ A­315, Buddha Marg,
Behind Mother Dairy,
Near I.P.Extension,
Mandawali, Delhi­110092
                                       ..... Respondent


Date of Institution          : 30.09.2019
Date of reserving Judgment   : 02.03.2020
Date of pronouncement        : 02.03.2020




CR No. 244/2019                                         Page 1 of 6
      Appearances

     For the Petitioner             : Sh. Jitendra Singh Sirohi, Adv.
     For the Respondent             : Sh. Yogender Mishra, Adv.

     JUDGMENT

1. A revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 400 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') was filed by the petitioner/accused Rajesh Pandey against the order dated 27.08.2019 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (East) in case bearing CT No. 53496/2016 (old CT No. 262/2015), u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (in short 'NI Act') titled as Gupta Electronics v. Rajesh Pandey (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned orders'), whereby an application u/s 145(2) of N.I.Act seeking permission to cross­examine the complainant/respondent moved by the petitioner/accused was dismissed. Certified copy of the impugned order was filed by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.

2. Notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent and Trial Court record was summoned.

3. Ld. counsel for the respondent appeared and did not prefer to file written reply to the revision petition. A prayer was made for dismissal of CR No. 244/2019 Page 2 of 6 present revision petition stating that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order.

4. I heard arguments on both sides.

5. As per the record, a complaint case bearing CT case No. 53496/2016, u/s 138 of N.I.Act was filed by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner/accused on 20.04.2015. On the same day, after recording of pre summoning evidence, Ld. Trial Court took cognizance of the offence u/s 138 of N.I.Act and summoned the petitioner/accused. After appearance of petitioner/accused, vide order dated 11.09.2015 notice of accusation u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was served upon the petitioner/accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On the same day, an application u/s 145(2) of N.I.Act seeking permission to cross­examine the complainant/respondent was moved on behalf of the petitioner/accused, which was allowed and one opportunity was granted to the petitioner/accused to cross­examine the complainant/respondent and matter was adjourned for 30.11.2015. On 30.11.2015 neither petitioner/accused nor respondent/complainant appeared and matter was adjourned to 23.02.2016. On 23.02.2016 complainant appeared in person for his cross­examination but none appeared on behalf of petitioner/ accused and as such matter was adjourned to 19.03.2016. On 19.03.2016 CR No. 244/2019 Page 3 of 6 again neither petitioner/accused nor respondent/complainant appeared and matter was adjourned to 02.06.2016. On 02.06.2016 again respondent/ complainant appeared for his cross­examination but petitioner/accused sought adjournment as his main counsel was not available but the request was strongly opposed on behalf of the respondent/complainant and as such Ld. Trial Court closed the right of petitioner/accused to cross­ examine the respondent/ complainant and in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Rajesh Aggarwal v. State, dated 28.07.2010, passed in Crl.M.C. No. 1996/2010, matter was adjourned for recording defence evidence. Thereafter for seven dates of hearing matter was listed either for recording defence evidence or for appearance of petitioner/accused. On 15.03.2017 petitioner/accused had moved an application seeking cancellation of NBW issued against him and recalling the complainant/respondent for his cross­examination u/s 145(2) Cr.P.C. On the same application, Ld. Trial Court stayed the NBW issued against accused till 27.04.2017 and application was kept pending for final disposal after hearing the opposite party on the same. Thereafter on several dates of hearing either petitioner/accused or his counsel did not appear before the court to pursue the application and it was only on 27.08.2019 that ld. Counsel for the petitioner/accused pursued the said application and the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the same with observation that the court has no power to review its own order. Feeling aggrieved CR No. 244/2019 Page 4 of 6 with the impugned order, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition for revision of the impugned order.

6. From perusal of the trial court record, it is apparent that first application u/s 145(2) of N.I.Act was moved on behalf of the petitioner/accused on 11.09.2015, which was allowed by the Ld. Trial Court but the petitioner/accused failed to cross­examine the respondent/accused despite sufficient opportunities were granted to him and as such vide order dated 02.06.2016 opportunity to cross­examine the complainant/respondent was close. If petitioner/accused was having any grievance against the order dated 02.06.2016, he could have challenged the said order but he kept mum for several dates of hearing and only on 15.03.2017 i.e. after a lapse of more than seven months, again an application u/s 145(2) of N.I.Act as well as cancellation of NBW against the petitioner/accused was moved and vide impugned order application u/s 145(2) of N.I.Act was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court with observation that the court has no power to review its own order.

7. In the present revision petition the only prayer made is to set aside the impugned order dated 27.08.2019 and petitioner/accused be allowed to cross­examine the respondent/complainant. It is clear from the record that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner/accused to cross­ CR No. 244/2019 Page 5 of 6 examine the respondent/complainant, which he failed to avail. As per settled proposition of law, Ld. Trial Court has no power to review its own order. The scope of revision is in narrow compass and only irregularity or illegality in the order of the Ld. Trial Court can be looked into, which the petitioner has miserably failed to point out in the impugned order.

8. In view of above discussion, I find no mistake, illegality, irregularity and impropriety in the impugned order. The revision petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed.

9. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court alongwith TCR.

10. File be consigned to Record Room. order KULDEEP Digitally signed by KULDEEP NARAYAN Location: East District NARAYAN Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Date: 2020.03.12 16:34:52 +0530 (Pronounced in the open Court (Kuldeep Narayan) on 02.03.2020) Additional Sessions Judge­04 East District, Court No. 10, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CR No. 244/2019 Page 6 of 6