Delhi District Court
Narinder Kumar Bhatia vs . Balbir Singh Bhatia on 11 July, 2022
Narinder Kumar Bhatia Vs. Balbir Singh Bhatia
IN THE COURT OF DR. JAGMINDER SINGH:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03 - (SOUTH-WEST)
DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 28/2022
Under Section: 397/399 of Code of Criminal Procedure
CNR No. DLSW01-000577-2022
In the matter of:
Narinder Kumar Bhatia,
S/o Sh. Baldev Raj Bhatia,
R/o WZ-40, B/4A, Gali No.16,
Krishna Puri, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018.
....Revisionist
Versus
Balbir Singh Bhatia,
S/o Late Sh. Balwant Singh,
R/o 71/110, Prem Nagar,
New Delhi-110058.
....Respondent
Date of Institution of the revision : 27.01.2022
Date of Arguments : 11.07.2022
Date on which judgment was pronounced : 11.07.2022
Final Order : Dismissed
ORDER:
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the revisionist, who is accused in the complaint case before learned Trial Court. For clarification, parties of present revision petition will be called by the same nomenclature as before learned Trial Court i.e. revisionist Narinder Kumar Bhatia as 'accused' and respondent Balbir Singh Bhatia as 'complainant'.
Criminal Revision No.28/2022 Page No. 1 of 6Narinder Kumar Bhatia Vs. Balbir Singh Bhatia
2. This revision has been filed against the order dated 24.11.2021 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby the application of the accused under Section 311 CrPC to recall the complainant for further cross examination was dismissed.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused that he is innocent and not liable for making any payment to the complainant. The cheque in question was given for security purpose and accused had already refunded the entire loan amount to the complainant. The accused had taken a loan of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant and at that time, complainant had given Rs.9400/- after deducting interest @ 6% per annum and also asked for two security cheques. Thereafter, the accused had paid the entire amount and requested for returning the cheques but the complainant did not return the cheques. The complainant was cross examined before leading defence evidence and thereafter several issues came out in defence evidence, therefore, further cross examination of the complainant is necessary and accordingly, an application under Section 311 CrPC was filed. It is further submitted that during D.E., the accused produced evidence who stated that complainant was doing the business of money lending and also that several other cases are pending filed by the complainant against other persons. During arguments, ld. counsel had placed before the Court a list of other cases filed by the complainant pending before other Courts. Ld. counsel further requested that an opportunity may be granted to recall the complainant for his further cross examination on aforesaid issues. Ld. counsel has also supported his arguments with case laws i.e. Criminal Revision No.28/2022 Page No. 2 of 6 Narinder Kumar Bhatia Vs. Balbir Singh Bhatia Sandeep Singh Vs. Ranjana Gawri 2019(4) JCC 3773, Mauktika Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Asia Pragati Capfin Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (269) DLT 113 and Sandeep Mehta Vs. Rakesh Arora 2021 Lawpack (Del) 85777.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant opposed the revision. He stated that complainant had already been cross examined by learned counsel for accused. After complainant's evidence, statement of accused was recorded in which accused opted for defence evidence and he had examined his defence evidence. During all these proceedings, no such application was filed by the accused. At the stage of final arguments, present application was filed by the accused is nothing else but a delay tactic only to harass the complainant and to linger on the matter. Taking of loan from the complainant has already been admitted by the accused. Both parties had already led their evidence. At this stage, the application filed by the accused under Section 311 CrPC is without any merit and same may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions of both parties and have gone through the Trial Court record. The brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that complainant advanced a friendly loan in the sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the accused in January, 2014 for a period of six months. In discharge of the said loan liability, the accused had issued nine postdated cheques in favour of the complainant, for amount of Rs.20,000/- each. The said cheques were bounced when presented by the complainant Criminal Revision No.28/2022 Page No. 3 of 6 Narinder Kumar Bhatia Vs. Balbir Singh Bhatia seeking repayment of the loan. The accused had not repaid the loan amount despite request by the complainant and legal notice, therefore, complaint case under Section 138 NI Act was filed.
6. The complaint was filed on 02.09.2014. As per ordersheet dated 18.12.2014, the summons issued to the accused were refused back with the report of 'refusal' and therefore bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against the accused. On next date i.e. 12.03.2015 memo of appearance on behalf of accused was filed. Vide order dated 30.05.2017 formal notice under Section 251 CrPC served to the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. It came to the notice of the Court that in this matter complainant was examined before serving of the notice i.e. 21.11.2015 and he was cross examined also on same date and matter was fixed for recording of S.A. as C.E. was closed. However, before that, on 28.05.2016 Court came to know about this fact and thereafter in presence of both parties with counsels, the notice was framed on 30.05.2017 and thereafter matter was fixed for S.A. as C.E was already concluded.
7. At that stage, no such application or objection was raised on behalf of the accused for recalling CW or for further opportunity for cross examination of CW. Statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC r/w Section 281 CrPC was recorded on 17.03.2018 and at that stage also there was no request to recall complainant, but accused proceeded to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, accused had examined three witnesses in defence and Criminal Revision No.28/2022 Page No. 4 of 6 Narinder Kumar Bhatia Vs. Balbir Singh Bhatia then D.E. was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments on 24.11.2021. At that stage, present application under Section 311 CrPC was moved on behalf of the accused to recall the complainant for further cross examination.
8. Admittedly, the complainant was examined and cross examined on 21.11.2015 but the accused kept waiting for about six years to move application to recall him for his further cross examination despite availing so many opportunities during this long six years. The accused even not bothered to move any such application after closure of C.E. or after recording of statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC r/w 281 CrPC.
9. Further the grounds, as submitted by learned counsel during arguments for recalling the complainant are that he wants to bring on record the fact of pending cases filed by him against other persons and also to prove and ask question from him as to whether he is doing business of money lending. Perusal of cross examination already done of the complainant on behalf of accused on 21.11.2015 reveals that a suggestion has already been put to the complainant in this regard wherein he replied as 'It is wrong to suggest that you do the work of money lending and different litigation against so many persons are running in the different Courts at Tis Hazari Courts and may be at another Courts in Delhi.'
10. Therefore, the complainant has already been cross examined on the point raised by the accused. Further it is Criminal Revision No.28/2022 Page No. 5 of 6 Narinder Kumar Bhatia Vs. Balbir Singh Bhatia defence of the accused that complainant is doing business of money lending and in this regard, accused might have called the concerned witnesses/record to prove his aforesaid defence. Court does not find any merit in the contention raised on behalf of the accused that at this stage, accused may be granted opportunity to further cross examine the complainant on some particular points and that too after a long unexplained delay. The facts and circumstances of the case laws referred by ld. counsel for accused are different from the present matter.
11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.11.2021 passed by learned Trial Court. Therefore, present revision petition filed by the accused stands dismissed.
12. Ld. Trial Court record alongwith copy of this order be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open court on Dated : 11.07.2022 (DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/11.07.2022 Note: This order contains six (06) pages and having my signature on each page.
(DR. JAGMINDER SINGH) ASJ-03 & Special Judge (Companies Act) Dwarka Courts (SW)/New Delhi/11.07.2022 Criminal Revision No.28/2022 Page No. 6 of 6