Delhi District Court
Case No.56404/16 vs . on 1 May, 2018
Case No.56404/16
CR No. 114/16
M/s AVJ Developers India Pvt.Ltd.
Vs.
M/s ECity Property Management & Services Pvt.Ltd.
01.05.2018 :
Present: Ms.Shivi, ld.Counsel for the Petitioner.
Sh.S.K.Gupta, ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
Arguments heard. Put up for Orders during the course of the day.
Manish Yaduvanshi ASJ05(W)/THC Delhi/01.05.2018(P) At 03:30 PM :
ORDER : ORAL Present: None.
The Petitioner is aggrieved of Order dt. 30.05.2015 passed by the Ld.trial Court directing issuance of summon for Offence Punishable U/s 138 of the N.I.Act on the named respondents i.e. Respondents no.1 to 6.
Contd.....2.
: 2 :
Respondent no.1/M/s.AVJ Developers India Pvt.Ltd is stated to be real Estate Company. Respondents no.2 to 4 are said to be its Directors and authorised persons whereas Respondents no.5 & 6 are CEO and CFO respectively.
As per the Memo of Parties, the Petitioner in this Petition is projected as M/s AVJ Developers India Pvt.Ltd. whereas the actual Revisionist is the Respondent no.6 in the Trial Court namely Basant Sharma. The Revision Petition is signed not by the Company but by the said Basant Sharma and the Affidavit in support of the Petition is also sworn by the same person.
The plea taken by the Petitioner is that he has now left the services of the accused no.1/Company. However, at the same time, it is clear from bare reading of Para 8 & 9 of the Revision Petition that the Petitioner is not disputing execution of documents on behalf of the accused no.1/ company. He admittedly left the job of Respondent no.1/Company in July, 2016 and as per him, he signed on various papers and executed several documents with several Companies on the directions of the Director of the accused Company, being duty bound.
Hence, it is not the case that the Petitioner namely Basant Sharma was not involved in day to day business affairs of the Contd.....3.
: 3 :
accused no.1/Company at the relevant time.
The Agreement Ex.CW1/2 was executed between the Complainant (Respondents herein) and the accused no.1/Company on 12.08.2014 which has been signed by the present Petitioner.
It is not his case that the Cheques Ex.CW1/4, Ex.CW 1/5 and Ex.CW1/6 are not issued pursuant to the said transaction arising out of the said letter of Intent Ex.CW1/2.
It is settled law that the Magistrate issuing process U/s 204 Cr.P.C. cannot review his said Order and it is amenable to a Petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. only as is held in IRIS Computers Ltd. Vs. Askari Infotech Private Ltd. & Others, (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 389.
In order to maintain the Revision Petition against such Order U/s 397 Cr.P.C., it is imperative for the Revisionist to establish that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from impropriety, illegality or error of a finding.
In the instant case, the complainant has led evidence in the Trial Court in accordance with contents of the Complaint. The present petitioner has admittedly left services of accused no.1/Company much later to the time when cause of action had arisen Contd.....4.
: 4 :
in favour of the complainant. It will be for the Petitioner to prove in the Ld.trial Court that he was not responsible for day to day conduct and affairs of the Respondent no.1/Company and hence, not liable to be prosecuted U/s 138 R/w Section 141 of the N.I.Act.
Consequently, the present Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Trial Court record be sent back alongwith copy of Order.
Both the parties are directed to appear before the Ld.trial Court on 15.05.2018.
Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Manish Yaduvanshi
Digitally ASJ05(W)/THC
signed by
MANISH
Delhi/01.05.2018(P)
MANISH YADUVANSHI
YADUVANSHI Date:
2018.05.02
12:53:41
+0530