Delhi District Court
Sh. Manish Arora vs ) Sh. Satish Madan on 9 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF Dr. VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI [PC ACT]:
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI.
In the matter of :
CA No.33/17
Sh. Manish Arora,
R/o C10, Second Floor,
Milap Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110 059. ............. Appellant/
Complainant
Versus
1.) Sh. Satish Madan
R/o DG3/76, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi - 110 018.
2.) Sh. Naresh Chopra,
R/o JG3/252 A, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi - 110 018. .............. Respondents
Date of Institution : 11.08.2017 Date of conclusion of arguments : 09.10.2017 Date of Order : 09.10.2017 O R D E R
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of the present appeal preferred against the impugned order dated 12.07.2017 passed by Ld MM, Dwarka, New Delhi whereby the Ld. MM has dismissed CA-33/17 1/6 the complaint u/s 200 Cr. P.C. titled as "Manish Arora vs. Satish Madan & Anr."
2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are like this. The complainant/appellant had moved a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. alongwith an application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. stating therein that the appellant was carrying on business of electric works at KG1, Vikas Puri, New Delhi from 20002012. The appellant had given a friendly loan to Honey Kapoor, who was carrying on the business of Vodafone Mini Store from the adjoining shop. The said Honey Kapoor had taken loan from the appellant, then he showed his inability to pay the loan amount. Thereafter Honey Kapoor suggested that he can arrange money from Naresh Chopra, who is carrying on the business of catering and property dealing in Vikas Puri. Then he arranged an amount of Rs.10,000/ from Naresh Chopra at interest of 1 % per day on 2/3 occasions. The said loan amounts were paid. Appellant was in need of Rs.14,000/ in 2007 and Honey Kapoor arranged the loan of Rs.40,000/ from Sh. Naresh Chopra in lieu of two blank cheques alongwith one signed blank stamp paper. The appellant had to take an amount of Rs.20,000/ from Honey Kapoor at the time of obtaining loan from Sh. Naresh Chopra. Honey Kapoor has promised to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/ of his loan to Naresh Chopra and appellant was to pay only Rs.20,000/ and CA-33/17 2/6 then the appellant demanded the balance amount of Rs.20,000/ only. The appellant paid the amount of Rs.20,000/ to Naresh Chopra and then the appellant demanded the balance amount of Rs.20,000/ from Honey Kapoor to pay the loan amount as the same was due from Honey Kapoor. On account of delay Naresh Chopra demanded extra amount of Rs.20,000/ in addition to interest that was paid to him from time to time. Naresh Chopra thereafter filled up the cheque for an amount of Rs.6 lacs which was dishonoured. The appellant filed a complaint before the police but no action was taken. Thereafter second cheque of Rs.2,10,000/ was presented in the month of July, 2010 but this cheque was also returned with remarks "payment stopped". The complainant thereafter served legal notice which was duly replied and Satish Madan further filed a criminal complaint u/s 138 of Negotiation Instruments Act. Ld. Trial court vide order dated 29.01.2017 dismissed the application u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and complainant was asked to lead presummoning evidence and ld. Trial court vide impugned order dismissed the complaint also.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order present appeal has been filed.
4. It has been contended that ld. Trial court has not appreciated the fact that proposed accused/Naresh Chopra has CA-33/17 3/6 filled up cheques of his own and therefore, committed an offence u/s 415 IPC. It is further submitted that Honey Kapoor has promised to pay the amount to Naresh Chopra and had asked the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/ only . Therefore, the appellant has paid an amount of Rs.20,000/ to Naresh Chopra and when appellant demanded amount of Rs.20,000/ he asked Honey Kapoor to pay the amount. Ld. Trial court has erred in holding that provisions of Section 20 of the N. I. Act is applicable in the facts of the present case. In the same manner, trial court has not appreciated that provisions of section 68 of the Indian Stamp Act are applicable, therefore, the cheques in question were inadmissible in evidence, therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and accused be summoned for the commission of the offence as detailed in the complaint.
5. Per contra ld. counsel for the respondent has submitted that two cheques in question were issued by the appellant. The appellant already stood convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act in respect of one of such cheques. This complaint was filed by the appellant to harass the respondent. There is no substance in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed in view of the fact that in respect of the cheque, the present complaint was filed by the appellant, the CA-33/17 4/6 appellant already stood convicted. This appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
7. It may be noted that the case of the appellant, in nut shell, is to the effect that the appellant has allegedly borrowed Rs.40,000/ from Sh. Naresh Kumar in the year 2007 against security of two blank cheques. One Honey Kapoor was to make a payment of Rs.20,000/ to the appellant but said Honey Kapoor had assured to return Rs.20,000/ to Sh. Naresh Kapoor on behalf of appellant in lieu of the loan availed by appellant from Sh. Naresh Chopra. But Honey Kapoor failed to pay the said amount to Sh. Naresh Chopra and as such, Sh. Naresh Chopra demanded Rs.20,000/ and dishonestly presented the cheque before the banker of the appellant. It may be noted that the cheque in question is found to have been issued in discharge of legal liability owned by the appellant to the said Sh. Naresh Chopra by the concerned court and appellant has been convicted, therefore, viewed from any angle, the said cheque presented by said Sh. Naresh Sharma cannot be held to an act of cheating committed on behalf of said Sh. Naresh Sharma. Apart from that ld. Trial court has rightly observed that section 20 of Negotiable Instruments CA-33/17 5/6 Act is applicable to the cheque presented by Sh. Naresh Chopra in as much as the appellant has admitted his signatures on the cheque bearing no.308398. So far as the contention regarding section 68 of the Indian Stamp Act is concerned, the same appears to be attractive but is not having any force under law in as much as that section provides for penalty to be imposed upon the said Sh. Naresh Sharma, but such fact has no casual connection with the alleged offence committed by the respondents as detailed in the complaint filed by the appellant.
8. From the above discussions, I find no ostensible reasons to taken a different view which has already been taken by ld. MM. I find no illegality in the order passed by the ld. MM. The revision petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial court for the purposes of record and this revision petition file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court today, On 9th Day of October, 2017.
(Dr. V.K. DAHIYA) SPECIAL JUDGE : CBI (PC ACT) DWARKA COURTS/09.10.2017 CA-33/17 6/6 CA-33/17 7/6