Delhi District Court
Ravinder Singh vs Raj Kumar on 26 February, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL:
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ASJ / NORTH EAST:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: SHAHDARA: DELHI.
Criminal Appeal No. 80/2017
CNR No. DLNE01-009570-2016
RAVINDER SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Heera Lal,
R/o H.No. 149/150,
New Village Usmanpur, Delhi
....... Petitioner
Vs.
1. RAJ KUMAR
S/o Sh. Revati Prasad,
R/o H.No. 31, Gali No.3,
Ramphal Bhawan, East Tukmeerpur,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094,
Also at.
F/1/1, Main Shani Bazar Road,
Near Hanuman Mandir,
Sunder Nagri, Nand Nagri,
Delhi-110093
2. State (GNCT Delhi)
Through its Public Prosecutor
Delhi
..... Respondents
Date of Institution : 31.10.2017
Judgment Reserved on : Not Reserved
Date of Judgment : 26.02.2018
CC No. : 882/2016
PS. : P.S. New Usmanpur
U/S. : 138 NI Act
JUDGMENT:
Crl. Appeal No. 80/17 Ravinder Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 3
1. The present criminal appeal is directed against judgment dated 21.07.2017 passed by Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Ld. MM (Traffic), North-East in CC No. 882/2016. Vide this judgment, the respondent/accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act").
2. Complainant has filed this appeal challenging the said acquittal.
3. First and foremost, the Ld. Counsel for respondent questioned maintainability of this appeal before this Court. As such, I have heard Sh. Ranjeet Singh, Ld. Counsel for respondent and Sh. Y.P. Rana, Ld. Counsel for appellant on this issue.
4. Ld. Counsel for respondent submits that the appeal is not maintainable before this Court because appellant i.e. complainant cannot be considered as victim for the purposes of Section 372 CrPC. He has relied upon one judgment reported as 2014 (3) DCR 450 titled The Bhajanpura Co- operative Urban Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. Versus Sushil Kumar.
5. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant relied upon 2017 (2) RCR (Criminal) 703 titled Mrinal Kanti Sil versus Sampa Kabiraj. He contended that it was held in this case that a complainant is also a victim and he can file an appeal under Section 372 CrPC.
6. I have considered the submissions.
Crl. Appeal No. 80/17 Ravinder Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 3
7. In the Bhajanpura Co-operative's case (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that in a case u/s 138 NI Act, the complainant cannot be included within the term 'victim'. The complainant cannot file an appeal u/s 372 CrPC and he must avail remedy u/s 378 CrPC. When our own Hon'ble High Court has given the decision on this issue, the contrary judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Mrinal Kanti (supra) cannot considered. This Court is bound by the law laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court.
8. In view of the above, it is held that the present appeal is not maintainable before this Court and is dismissed as such.
9. A copy of the judgment be given to the appellant and another copy be placed in the Trial Court Record. TCR be sent back.
10. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 26th day of February, 2018.
(SANJAY BANSAL) Special Judge (NDPS) / ASJ NE / KKD Courts / Delhi Crl. Appeal No. 80/17 Ravinder Singh vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 3