Delhi District Court
Neeraj Raguvanshi vs M/S Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd on 2 July, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. VRINDA KUMARI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-02, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 106 OF 2020
CNR NO. DLST01-002523-2020
IN THE MATTER OF
Neeraj Raguvanshi,
S/o Late Sh. Amar Singh Raguvanshi,
R/o Subhash Nagar, Jawalapur, Haridwar,
Pargana : Jawalapur,
Tehsil & District Haridwar ........ Revisionist
Versus
M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director
Rajneesh Nagar,
R/o A-2, Bulland House,
Khanpur Extension,
Devli Road, New Delhi. ........ Respondents
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 03.03.2020
DATE OF RESERVING ORDER : 27.04.2022
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.07.2022
ORDER
1. Vide this Order, I shall dispose of the present revision petition filed against Impugned Order dated 25.01.2018 in Complaint Case No. 471584/2016 titled as M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Neeraj Raguvanshi pronounced by Ld. MM-03 / NI Act (South).
CR No. 106/2020 Neeraj Raghvanshi Vs M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 02.07.2022 Pg No. 1 of 8
2. The grievance of the revisionist is that vide the Impugned Order dated 25.01.2018, the opportunity of the revisionist to lead defence evidence in the complaint case u/s 138 NI Act was closed in his absence.
3. The Impugned Order dated 25.01.2018 reads as follows :
"Present: AR of complainant with counsel Sh. Gaffar Hussain Accused is absent.
BW's issued against accused received back unexecuted with the report that the address given in the warrants wife of the accused was found and she did not give any satisfactory reply about the whereabouts of the accused.
Be awaited for appearance of accused at 02.00 pm. (Arun Kumar Garg) MM-03/NI Act/SD/25.01.2018 Called again Present: AR of complainant with counsel Sh. M. Ahmed.
Accused is absent despite repeated calls since morning. It is already 3.55 P.M. Since the accused has failed to lead DE despite repeated opportunities after 18.11.2015, opportunity of CR No. 106/2020 Neeraj Raghvanshi Vs M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 02.07.2022 Pg No. 2 of 8 accused to lead DE is hereby closed. Since the accused is not appearing since last many dates, without any reasonable explanation, despite being on bail, I deem it appropriate to direct SHO, PS Saket to register an FIR U/s. 229 A IPC against the accused Neeraj Raghuvanshi S/o Lt. Sh. Amar Singh Raghuvanshi R/o Subhash Nagar, B-Block, Street No. 11, Near Annapurna Banquet Hall behind BTS, Jwalapur, Haridwar, U.K. and to send a copy of FIR to this Court by the next date.
Bail bond furnished by the accused on 28.04.2010 are hereby fortified. Issue NBWs against accused and notice to his Surety Pankaj Kumar u/s. 446 Cr.P.C. to be executed through DCP (South) on filing of PF within three days from today. Copy of bail bonds furnished by the accused be annexed alongwith warrants against the accused and notice to his surety.
Copy of this be sent to SHO, PS Saket through AR/ Counsel for complainant for requisite compliance.
Put up for further proceedings on 17.03.2018."
4. The Impugned Order has been challenged by the revisionist on various grounds. It is submitted that the application of the accused for taking photographs of the cheque in question by a privately engaged forensic / handwriting expert had already been allowed. It is submitted that sometimes date was given because of CR No. 106/2020 Neeraj Raghvanshi Vs M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 02.07.2022 Pg No. 3 of 8 transfer of the case. It is also submitted that figure '2' had been added in the cheque amount and the amount of Rs 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs Only) was converted into Rs 2,10,00,000/- maliciously by the respondent-complainant. It is submitted that the revisionist-accused has a strong defence in his favour and closing DE would gravely prejudice his rights.
5. Regarding the question of delay, it has been mentioned by the revisionist that he came to know about the Impugned Order only on 07.01.2020 and the present revision petition has been filed within three months from the date of knowledge. It is submitted in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act that the revisionist- accused had filed an application for surrender-cum-bail before Ld. Trial Court on 13.11.2019 which was fixed for 16.11.2019. It is submitted that in the meantime, he had to surrender in Case No. 722/2015 regarding the same cheque in Haridwar Court. He was admitted to bail by Ld. Trial Court in the present case on 18.12.2019. On 07.01.2020 when the revisionist-accused appeared before Ld. Trial Court, he came to know that the opportunity to lead DE had been closed on 25.01.2018. On 07.01.2020 while the revisionist-accused was on his way back to Court, his car met with a serious accident because of which more than 25 days got wasted. In these circumstances, the revisionist has prayed for condonation of delay in filing the present revision petition.
6. Despite opportunities, the respondent has not appeared to address arguments on the present revision petition. I shall, CR No. 106/2020 Neeraj Raghvanshi Vs M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 02.07.2022 Pg No. 4 of 8 therefore, decide the present revision petition on the basis of arguments of the revisionist and record. I have heard detailed arguments and have perused the records carefully including the Trial Court Record.
7. Perusal of record shows that the complaint case u/s 138 NI Act was filed by the respondent-complainant way back on 24.10.2008. A Proxy Counsel appeared before Ld. Trial Court on 23.11.2009 and moved an exemption application for the revisionist- accused which was allowed subject to cost. Thereafter, it was only upon issuance of bailable warrants that the revisionist-accused appeared before Ld. Trial Court on 28.04.2010. He was also admitted to regular bail and bail bond was furnished.
8. Notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against the revisionist-accused on 03.03.2011. The revisionist-accused also moved an application u/s 145(2) NI Act on the same day. It was followed by a trail of absence and adjournments on behalf of the revisionist-accused. NBWs and B/W were repeatedly issued against the revisionist-accused. Costs were repeatedly imposed upon him. After much delay, it was only on 29.11.2014 i.e. after a delay of three years and eight months that the accused cross examined CW1.
9. The matter was then listed for consideration of the prayer of the accused for examination of the cheque in question by handwriting expert. It was again followed by repeated absence and adjournments. On 20.05.2015, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist-
CR No. 106/2020 Neeraj Raghvanshi Vs M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 02.07.2022 Pg No. 5 of 8 accused prayed before Ld. Trial Court that his application for examination of cheque by handwriting expert may be decided after recording of S/A u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The S/A was recorded only on 17.10.2015. Matter was accordingly listed for leading DE on 18.11.2015.
10. The complaint case continued to hang at the stage of DE since 18.11.2015 despite repeated opportunities to the revisionist-accused.
11. It is noted that it was only on two dates i.e. 30.01.2016 and 05.03.2016 that the matter was adjourned on account of transfer of case in terms of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015.
12. Vide Order dated 17.08.2016, prayer of the accused for a forensic test of the cheque in question and examination of the same by handwriting expert was allowed by Ld. Trial Court. The requisite steps for the same were, however, not taken by the revisionist-accused. Another opportunity for the same was provided to the revisionist-accused by Ld. Trial Court subject to cost vide Order dated 14.10.2016. On 08.11.2016, the revisionist-accused was granted the liberty to get his private handwriting expert on the date fixed i.e. 02.12.2016 to get the photographs of the cheque in question taken. The record shows that on 02.12.2016, the matter was transferred from the Court of Ld. MM-01 (South) NI Act to the Court of Ld. MM-03 (South) NI Act. There is nothing to show that CR No. 106/2020 Neeraj Raghvanshi Vs M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 02.07.2022 Pg No. 6 of 8 the handwriting expert had appeared on the said date. The Order dated 12.01.2017 shows that the handwriting expert did not appear on that date also in the Court to do the needful. Last and final opportunity was granted to the revisionist-accused for the same and to lead DE.
13. Thereafter, the revisionist-accused remained absent. Repeated bailable warrants were issued against him. It was under
such circumstances that vide Order dated 25.01.2018, the opportunity of revisionist-accused to lead DE was closed. SHO PS Saket was also directed to register an FIR u/s 229A IPC against the revisionist-accused. The bail bond of the accused was forfeited and NBWs were issued against him.
14. It is noted that vide Order dated 06.04.2019, the revisionist-accused was declared an absconder.
15. The Trial Court Record shows that an application for issuance of Production Warrants was moved on behalf of the revisionist-accused in the present case on the ground that the revisionist-accused had been arrested on 19.11.2019 at Haridwar, District U.P. Roshnabad Jail in Case No. 722/2015 u/s 420/467/468/ 406 IPC. This averment of the revisionist-accused shows that his absence before Ld. Trial Court prior to 19.11.2019 was wilful. In such circumstance, it does not now lie in the month of the revisionist-accused to say that he came to know about the Impugned Order only on 07.01.2020 after he was produced in the present case CR No. 106/2020 Neeraj Raghvanshi Vs M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 02.07.2022 Pg No. 7 of 8 from Haridwar Jail.
16. The above-said discussion not only shows that the revisionist-accused was responsible for the inordinate delay in conclusion of trial in the complaint case before Ld. Trial Court which is pending since 24.10.2008 but he also deliberately avoided to lead DE and to take prompt steps for examination of cheque in question by his privately hired handwriting expert. In view of his wilful absence before Ld. Trial Court prior to 19.11.2019, the revisionist-accused cannot try to bring the present revision petition within the limitation period on the ground that he came to know of the Impugned Order only 07.01.2020. The grounds taken for condonation of delay are flimsy and have not been supported by documents. The present revision petition, therefore, must fail not only on merits but also on account being barred by limitation. There is not illegality or perversity in the Impugned Order dated 25.01.2018
17. The present revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 2nd DAY OF JULY 2022 VRINDA Digitally signed by VRINDA KUMARI KUMARI Date:
2022.07.04 12:28:21 +0000(Vrinda Kumari) ASJ-02, South District Saket Courts, New Delhi.
CR No. 106/2020 Neeraj Raghvanshi Vs M/s Bulland Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. 02.07.2022 Pg No. 8 of 8