Delhi District Court
Judgment Of Hon'Ble High Court Of Delhi ... vs Amit Kumar Decided On on 26 July, 2011
CC No.1315/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
There is no report in respect of issuance of any process.
Ahlmad to check and report.
In the meantime, fresh summons be issued against the accused for
24.12.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.4913/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Bailable Warrant issued against the accused received back
unexecuted. Report perused.
In the meanwhile, fresh process be issued executable through the
office of the concerned SHO for 29.09.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.1378/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
NBW received back unexecuted. Report perused.
Let Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be initiated against the accused for
03.01.2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.961/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
BW received back executed upon the wife of the accused.
Since none has appeared on behalf of the accused, let NBW against
the accused be issued for 18.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.1583/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. Proxy Counsel.
There is no report in respect compliance of previous order.
Ahlmad to check and report.
In the meanwhile, let previous order be complied with afresh for
26.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.3848/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Wife of the accused.
The matter is at the stage of settlement.
At request of parties, let the matter be put up for recording of
statement of settlement on 10.08.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.3843/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Wife of the accused.
The matter is at the stage of settlement.
At request of parties, let the matter be put up for recording of
statement of settlement on 10.08.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5240/10
26.07.2011
Present: None for the complainant.
Court notice issued to the complainant received back served upon
the brother of the complainant. However, none has appeared on behalf of
the complainant.
Be awaited.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
At 3.10 p.m.
Present: None for the complainant.
In the facts and circumstances appearing from the record, the
complainant is dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.441/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
NBW received back unexecuted.
It appears that NBW was directed to be executed through the
concerned DCP. However, report filed by the Head Constable not
appropriate.
Let fresh NBW be issued to be executable through the concerned
DCP.
Complainant may assist and may also provide fresh address of the
accused, if can be.
Be listed on 01.12.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.2795/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Ld. Proxy counsel for the accused.
Parties have settled the matter.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant submits that he has received some
PDCs totalling Rs.6 lacs.
At request of parties, let the matter be listed on 15.11.2011 for
realization of cheques.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.35/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
NBW was directed to be executed through the concerned DCP.
However, again the report has been submitted by the Constable. NBW
was not executed on the ground that accused Nand Lal Singh has been
transferred to Kohima, Nagaland.
In the considered view of this court, such things are not acceptable
and not appropriate.
In the peculiar circumstances of this case appearing from the
record, let the NBW be issued afresh through the concerned DCP who
shall ensure the execution of this warrant and shall submit a report within
15 days.
Specific direction shall be mentioned on the NBW itself.
Be listed on 12.08.2011 for compliance.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.2321/10
26.07.2011
Present: Both the parties.
As per the submission of the complainant, she has received Rs.1
lac from the accused as part payment.
For remaining payment, parties seek time.
At request, be listed on 24.12.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.2324/10
26.07.2011
Present: Both the parties.
As per the submission of the complainant, she has received Rs.1
lac from the accused as part payment.
For remaining payment, parties seek time.
At request, be listed on 24.12.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.522/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
NBW received back unexecuted. Report perused.
It appears that Ajay Kumar, Director of the company was present
on 08.02.2011. It appears that he is deliberately avoiding the process of
law.
Let Process U/s 82 Cr.P.C. be initiated against the accused Ajay
Kumar.
Proclamation to be also published in an approved newspaper.
Complainant to take all necessary steps well in time.
Be listed on 02.12.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5153/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
These are two connected matters.
In one matter, Bailable Warrant has been received back unexecuted
with a report accused is out of station.
It appears that concerned Process Server has not tried to prosecute
this warrant with all due seriousness. This is not the appropriate way to
execute the warrant.
It further appears that accused is deliberately avoiding the process
of law.
Let NBW be issued against the accused for 15.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.2659/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused absent.
These are two connected matters.
In one matter, Bailable Warrant has been received back unexecuted
with a report accused is out of station.
It appears that concerned Process Server has not tried to prosecute
this warrant with all due seriousness. This is not the appropriate way to
execute the warrant.
It further appears that accused is deliberately avoiding the process
of law.
Let NBW be issued against the accused for 15.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.4966/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
It appears that no one is appearing on behalf of the complainant for
the last several dates.
Notice issued to the complainant received back served upon a
tenant of the complainant.
Let Notice be issued afresh to the complainant and his ld. counsel
for 02.12.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.121/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with ld. proxy counsel.
He submits that PF has been filed. However, there is no report in
respect of return of any process.
Let the same be checked by the Ahlmad.
In the meantime, let previous order be complied with afresh for
08.12.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5985/11
26.07.2011
Present: Director of the complainant company with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the
complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and
jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence
punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against the accused person for the next date
of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and
authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies
of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4)
Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as
directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial
procedure on 09.09.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.3761/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Accused with ld. counsel.
The matter is settled.
Separate statement of complainant recorded in this respect.
The matter stands compounded U/s 147 NI Act.
The accused is acquitted of the charges.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond, if any, be discharged.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5281/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Process still has not been received back. Be awaited.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with afresh for
28.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5247/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Process still has not been received back. Be awaited.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with afresh for
28.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5289/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Process still has not been received back. Be awaited.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with afresh for
28.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5249/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Process still has not been received back. Be awaited.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with afresh for
28.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5293/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Process still has not been received back. Be awaited.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with afresh for
28.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5288/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Process still has not been received back. Be awaited.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with afresh for
28.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5275/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Process still has not been received back. Be awaited.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with afresh for
28.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5258/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Process still has not been received back. Be awaited.
In the meantime, previous order be complied with afresh for
28.11.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.6079/11
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the
complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and
jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence
punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against accused No.1 and accused No.2 for
the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and
authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies
of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4)
Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as
directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial
procedure on 06.09.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.6079/11
26.07.2011
Present: Attorney of the Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the
complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and
jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence
punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against accused No.1 and accused No.2 for
the next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and
authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies
of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4)
Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as
directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial
procedure on 06.09.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5752/11
26.07.2011
Present: AR of the Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the
complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and
jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence
punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against accused Sunil Sharma for the next
date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and
authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies
of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4)
Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as
directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial
procedure on 05.09.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.5751/11
26.07.2011
Present: Attorney of the Complainant with counsel.
After going through the complaint and the affidavit of the
complainant's witness and after considering the issues of limitation and
jurisdiction, I am of the opinion that prima facie a case for offence
punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is
made out against the accused person.
A summons be issued against accused Bhim Sen Sharma for the
next date of hearing. Complainant shall file necessary process fee.
Summons shall also be sent through the mode of speed post and
authorized courier.
Complainant shall ensure the filing of sufficient number of copies
of the complaint as provided in section-204(3) Cr.PC.
Complainant to file the Process fees within 10 days.
Complainant shall keep in mind the provision of section-204(4)
Cr.PC. empowering the court to dismiss the complaint in case steps as
directed above are not taken within a reasonable time.
Let the matter be listed for further proceeding under summary trial
procedure on 06.09.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
File is taken up today on an application for preponement of date.
CC No.3042/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Complainant filed two applications, one for preponement of date
and second for closing of opportunity for cross-examination.
Let Notice be issued to the accused.
Be listed on 23.08.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MEGISTRATE (NI ACT)-1, CENTRAL: ROOM
NO.-42, TIS HAZARI COURT COMPLEX, DELHI
Inquest Proceeding
In RE: Death of Mukesh
PS: I.P. Estate
On 11th of May 2011, in the Inquest Proceeding, Post Mortem was
conducted on the body of deceased Mukesh. However, till date no report
has been received. Even no communication has been received in this
respect, either from the hospital or from the police station.
Let a Notice be issued to the Chief Medical Officer, Lok Nayak
Hospital, Delhi.
Let a Notice be also issued to the IO of the case and the SHO of
the concerned Police Station.
Be put up on 05.08.2011.
A copy of this order be also annexed with the Notice for
compliance.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.192/10
26.07.2011
Present: Both the parties with ld. counsels.
Arguments on the application for summoning for additional
witness filed on behalf of the accused have been heard.
Accused wants to summon two witnesses i.e. Satya Bhama and
concerned Clerk of SBI Bank in his defence.
The ground mentioned in the application is that accused shall
suffer irreparable loss and and injury and the application is not allowed
and that the summoning of such additional witness is required for the just
and proper disposal of the case.
As against these, ld. counsel for the complainant submits that both
the witnesses sought to be summoned were mentioned in the earlier list
filed by the accused and that list was already disposed of vide order dated
08.02.2011 by which only two witnesses out of 8 were allowed to be
summoned.
It is the contention of the ld. counsel for the complainant that since
earlier list was already disposed of and other 6 witnesses (including the
present two witnesses sought to be summoned) were rejected, this court
cannot review the order by giving any liberty to the accused to summon
those witnesses.
However, ld. counsel for the accused submits that summoning of
both the witnesses is necessary to prove the non-transfer of any amount
from the bank account of the complainant to the accused by way of
cheque.
Ld. Counsel for the accused also contented that Satya Bhama is
required to establish the alleged transaction between her and the
complainant.
I have considered the submissions and gone through the record.
The case pertains to the year 2003. Several opportunities have been given
to the accused. Even at one point of time, Revision Petition filed in
respect of recalling of complainant for cross-examination has been
dismissed.
Even on several times, cost has been imposed upon the accused in
the present case.
Even accused failed to examine the Record Clerk of the court
which he was allowed by the earlier list of witnesses (order dated
30.05.2011). Even no medical purpose has been served by calling a
witness from the State Bank of Patiala which was allowed by the earlier
list of witnesses.
However, I am not inclined to accept the contention of the ld.
counsel for the complainant that a review has been sought by the accused.
Section 311 Cr.P.C. is worded in the widest possible term.
However, considering the facts and circumstances appearing from
the record and in the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered
view that accused has failed to show any sufficient ground to call both the
witnesses.
Consequently, application is dismissed.
The matter has already been delayed. Two dates are given to
conclude the matter.
Let the file be listed on 29.08.2011 and 30.08.2011 for conclusion
of the trial.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.4/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with ld. proxy counsel.
Accusation explained over to the accused.
Her Plea and Examination recorded separately.
Be put up for defence evidence unless an application U/s 145(2) NI
Act is filed in the meantime.
Be listed on 06.09.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.3367/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
It appears that summons has been issued to the accused. However,
the same has not been received back.
Ahlmad to check and report.
In the meantime, order dated 07.06.2010 shall be complied with
afresh.
It further appears that on the last date, it is wrongly mentioned in
the order sheet that affidavit in respect of Proof of Delivery has to be
filed.
It appears that there were 3 connected matters and in two matters
Proof of Delivery was required whereas this case has already crossed the
stage of summoning.
Consequently, the last order dated 11.07.2011 stands rectified to
such extent.
Let Order dated 07.06.2010 be complied with afresh for
17.10.2011.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.1850/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Accused with ld. counsel.
Vide separate judgment, accused is acquitted of the charges in the
present complaint case.
Bail Bond and Surety Bond already on record shall be extended for
the purpose of Section-437-A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(RAKESH KUMAR SINGH)
MM-(NI Act)-Central-01/THC/Delhi/26.07.11
CC No.4274/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
No one is appearing on behalf of complainant for several dates.
Notice issued to the complainant received back unserved. Report
perused.
Let notice be issued to the counsel for complainant for
09.12.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4727/10
26.07.2011
Present: Proxy counsel for complainant.
He filed an additional affidavit for placing on record the
acknowledgment card in respect of legal demand notice sent to the accused.
However, the complainant is not present today.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of the
complainant on the ground that he is suffering from fever. No details or duration
or any advise for bed rest has been given in the application. Even no supporting
document has been attached with the application. It appears that the complainant
was not present on several occasions. In the circumstances, the exemption
application is dismissed.
It appears that matter is at the stage of pre summoning evidence.
The complainant is not pursuing with due diligence. Proxy counsel for
complainant prayed for one opportunity. Affidavit has been filed. Let one
opportunity be given to the complainant. However, it is made clear that no further
shall be given to the complainant for the purpose.
To be listed on 23.08.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.5987/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
It appears that opportunity was given to the complainant to file
proof of delivery in respect of legal demand notice as required in terms of
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in HDFC Vs Amit Kumar decided on
22.05.2009. However, the complainant has not filed the same till date. Only one
opportunity is being given to the complainant failing which no further opportunity
shall be given.
To be listed on 29.08.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.5233/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with proxy counsel.
Accused No.2 with proxy counsel.
As per submission of accused No.2, he is also representing
accused No.1 company. Proxy counsel for accused submits that accused No.3 is
exempted through counsel. However, main counsel for accused No.3 is not
available, such exemption cannot continue. Accused No.3 is directed to remain
present on the next date.
Matter is at the stage of further cross examination of complainant.
It appears that the complainant has already cross examined in part. However,
today main counsel for accused No.3 is not available to cross examine the
complainant. The case pertains to the year 2004. Complainant was cross
examined in part in the year 2008. Accused is not ready to cross examine the
complainant on the ground that main counsel is not available. Let one opportunity
be given to the accused to conclude the cross examination of the complainant
failing which opportunity to cross examine the complainant shall be closed.
To be listed on 30.08.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.5337/11
26.07.2011
Present: None.
There is no report in respect of return of notice. However, notice
issued to the accused received back unserved with a report Tala Band. Though
the address of the accused is correctly mentioned on the notice, the name is
wrongly mentioned as Ramesh Bhatia, whereas the name appearing in the
complaint as Rashmi Bhatia.
Ahlmad to be careful in future while issuing the process.
Let notice be issued to both the parties and their counsel for
01.12.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.1185/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
It appears that BW was directed to be issued. However, Ahlmad
had issued NBW against the accused.
Ahlmad to be careful in future while issuing the process.
NBW against accused received back unexecuted. Report
perused.
It appears that the accused is deliberately avoiding the court
process.
In such circumstances, let fresh NBW be issued against accused
on filing of PF, returnable on 26.11.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.1587/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
NBW against accused received back unexecuted with a report
that accused is not well and due to serious condition of the accused, arrest has
not been effected. Considered.
It appears from the report that no medical document was available
with the daughter of the accused. I consider that accused is deliberately avoiding
the process of court. Let fresh NBW be issued against the accused for next date.
Police authorities is directed to arrest the accused, however, abandon precaution.
It is directed that concerned police authorities shall also consult with a doctor in
this respect. Let this direction be also mentioned on the NBW.
To be listed on 13.10.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4840/1 & 4087/1
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. counsel for complainant.
These are two connected matters.
BW against accused received back unexecuted with a report that
accused has left the address. Ld. counsel for complainant submits that accused
is residing at D-105, Orchit Green, Second Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana.
Let BW be issued against the accused afresh at this address on
filing of PF, returnable on 05.12.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4886/10
26.07.2011
Present: Jamant Singh from ESIC hospital.
Accused absent.
NBW against accused received back unexecuted with a report left
the address 10 years ago.
Vide order dated 19.02.2010 fresh NBW was directed to be issued
against accused on the insistence of complainant on the ground that accused is
very much residing at the given address, whereas proceeding 82/83 Cr. P. C
have already been initiated against accused.
In the facts and circumstances, proceedings under section 82 Cr.
P. C be issued against the accused afresh for 03.12.2011.
Proclamation to be also published in an approved newspaper.
Complainant to take all necessary steps.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.1336/10 & 1342/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant Pinky Malhotra with counsel.
Accused with counsel.
These are two connected matters.
Matter is listed for cross examination of complainant with
connected matter on the ground that accused was allowed to cross examine both
the complainants on the same day. However, Deepak Malhotra, who is
complainant in connected matter is not present today.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of
complainant Deepak Malhotra on the ground that he is missing. Copy of
complaint filed with Commissioner of Police has also been attached with the
application. Exemption application is allowed.
Let one opportunity be given to the complainant to Deepak
Malhotra to appear and participate in the cross examination. It is, however, made
clear that on the next date Deepak Malhotra fails to appear, cross examination of
Pinky Malhotra will continue.
At this stage, Ld. counsel for accused again submits his
apprehensions and complainant wants to take advantage of separate cross
examination. Since entire defence of the case is based on same and similar
grounds.
Considering the apprehensions, it is made clear that if Deepak
Malhotra fails to appear no further opportunity shall be given to him to participate
in the cross examination except in very exceptional circumstances being
established by him.
Earlier cost of Rs.5,000/- deposited with DLSA by the
complainant.
To be listed on 17.10.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.1923/10
26.07.2011
Present: Clerk for counsel for complainant.
Ld. counsel for accused No.2.
Ld. counsel for accused No.8.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of accused
No.2. The same is without any medical certificate. Repeated exemption
applications have been moved on behalf of accused No.2. Same cannot be
accepted. Hence, exemption application is dismissed.
It further appears that even cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed upon the
accused No.2 has not been deposited till date. Today Ld. counsel for accused
No.2 raised an objection on the maintainability of the complaint on the ground
that bank account of the accused from which the cheque was issued was seized
by a garnish order. However, on inquiry, Ld. counsel for accused No.8 submits
that he will file judgment on the point that if the complaint is not maintainable, the
proceedings has to be dropped even the summons have already been issued in
the present private complaint case. He seeks one week time for this purpose.
Request allowed.
Ld. counsel for accused No.8 filed attested copy of letter of
resignation of accused No.8. The same is taken on record.
To be listed for consideration on 08.08.2011.
At request of both the parties, the date is changed to 22.08.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.281/1
26.07.2011
Present: AR of the complainant in person.
All the accused with counsel.
Ld. counsel for accused submits that he has received all the
copies of documents from the complainant. However, parties submit that there
are chances of amicable settlement.
To be listed for this purpose on 16.09.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.5290/1
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant in person.
Summons received back unserved. Report is not legible.
Let the concerned process server be called for next date.
In the meantime, let fresh summons be issued on filing of PF,
returnable on 29.11.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.1717/10, 1739/10 & 1740/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. counsel for complainant.
These are three connected matters.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of
complainant on the ground that he has been advised for bed rest of four days.
Allowed subject to furnishing medical documents on next date.
The matter is listed for defence evidence today. However, parties
submit that there are chances of amicable settlement.
To be listed for settlement, if any, defence evidence on
16.09.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.2797/10
26.07.2011
Present: AR of the complainant with counsel.
Accused No.2 & 5 are present.
An exemption application has been moved on behalf of accused
No.4. However in the medical prescription, no details in respect of bed rest has
been mentioned. Consequently, exemption application is dismissed.
It appears that the matter is listed for reply/arguments on
application under section 145(2) NI Act.
At this stage, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for accused that
different cases have been filed by the complainant in respect of same transaction
in different courts in Delhi. The position has not been controverted by the
complainant rather Ld. counsel for complainant accepted the same. Ld. counsel
for accused submits that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Damodar S Prabhu Vs Sayed Bahalal H. 2010 V AD (SC) 225 all the cases must be filed or
continue in one court. I find submission quite justified. Accordingly, let this file be
placed before Ld. CMM, Delhi for appropriate directions for 29.07.2011 at 2 pm.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4369/10
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
LAC Sh. N. K. Saraswat for accused.
Matter is listed for making of payment and final arguments. It
appears that opportunity to lead defence evidence was closed. However,
opportunity to make payment was given to the accused since the accused
admitted his liability. However, today an exemption application has been moved
on behalf of accused. Medical document has been attached with the exemption
application. Heard. Exemption application is allowed.
However, since accused has not made payment, let the matter be
decided on the basis of material available on record. Parties are at liberty to file
written arguments.
At this stage, counsel for complainant submits that surety of the
accused has given his wrong address in the surety bond. He further submits that
this address was verified by the court of Sh. Sonu Agnihotri, Ld. MM, KKDC,
Delhi in Sachin Parmar Vs Neelam Sharma under section 138 NI Act (next date is
19.08.2011) and after police verification it was found that surety was not residing
at the given address. Ld. counsel further submits that on such basis surety of
Ramesh Kumar was not accepted. Surety Ramesh Kumar is present and
admitted this position as stated by counsel for complainant. However, he submits
that he will produce ration card of his new address and will stand surety in the
present case. Surety Ramesh Kumar has already stated lie before this court by
furnishing wrong address in the surety bond. In such circumstances, surety
cannot be accepted. Consequently, surety of Ramesh Kumar stands cancelled.
LAC prayed that since accused has been exempted today, no
adverse be passed. Prayer is allowed. Accused to furnish fresh address. Present
surety Ramesh Kumar to furnish his personal bond for appearance on the next
date. LAC prayed that some time may be given to furnish personal bond of the
surety. At request to be called after lunch.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4369/10
After lunch
26.07.2011
Present: Complainant with counsel.
Ld. counsel for surety.
Surety has furnished personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for
his appearance on the next date under section 88 Cr. P. C. The details of that
case as provided are as under:-Sachin Parmar Vs Neelam Sharma under section
138 NI Act (next date is 19.08.2011). Let the concerned Ahlmad be called with
record of that case for next date.
Ld. counsel for complainant submits that prosecution against the
surety may be initiated under section 177 & 193 IPC.
To be listed on 26.08.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.649/10
26.07.2011
Present: Ld. counsel for complainant.
Ld. counsel for accused.
Written arguments filed by Ld. counsel for accused. Ld. counsel
for complainant submits that he wants to file written arguments.
To be listed for filing of written arguments and disposal on
10.08.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.5668/10
26.07.2011
Present: None for complainant.
Accused with counsel.
Proxy counsel for complainant was available but when the
statement of accused was recorded, he left the court room. Statement of accused
recorded. Accused does not want to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, DE
stands closed.
To be listed for arguments on 11.08.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.3062/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
Notice issued to the complainant received back unserved. Notice
issued to counsel for complainant received back duly served. However, no one is
present on behalf of complainant. Advocate Sh. Anand Parkash appeared and
submits that Sh. Ashok Sharma, counsel for accused has already been expired.
He appeared only on behalf of Sh. Ashok Sharma, counsel for accused, who has
already expired. The complaint pertains to the year 2006. Advocate Sh. Anand
Parkash wants to withdraw his Vakalatnama from this complaint case.
Be awaited for Ld. counsel for complainant.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
At 3 pm.
Present: None.
No one has appeared on behalf of complainant despite the fact
that the notice has been duly upon the counsel for complainant.
Complaint is dismissed in default for non prosecution.
File be consigned to record room.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.5127/10
26.07.2011
Present: AR of the complainant in person.
There is no report in respect of compliance of previous order.
Ahlmad shall check and report.
However, in the meantime, previous order be complied with for
26.11.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4492/1
26.07.2011
Present: None.
There is no report in respect of compliance of previous order.
Ahlmad shall check and report.
However, in the meantime, previous order be complied with for
28.11.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4067/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
There is no report in respect of compliance of previous order.
Ahlmad shall check and report.
However, in the meantime, previous order be complied with for
29.11.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4928/10
26.07.2011
Present: Proxy counsel for complainant.
There is no report in respect of compliance of previous order.
Ahlmad shall check and report.
However, in the meantime, previous order be complied with for
26.11.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.4843/10 & 4849/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
Ahlmad has indicated the word "issued" on the order sheet.
However, there is no report in respect of return of process.
Ahlmad shall check and report.
However, in the meantime, previous order be complied with for
29.11.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.5444/11
26.07.2011
Present: None.
There is no report in respect of compliance of previous order.
Ahlmad shall check and report.
However, in the meantime, previous order be complied with for
29.11.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.5617/11, 5736/11 & 5619/11
26.07.2011
Present: Sh. Sandeep Gupta, Ld. counsel for complainant.
None for accused.
These are three connected matters.
Vide separate order, application of accused moved under section
145(2) NI Act for the purpose of cross examination of complainant is dismissed.
One opportunity is being given to the accused to establish his
defence by other means.
To be listed for DE on 27.08.2011.
(Rakesh
Kumar Singh)
MM-01
(Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011
CC No.3972/10
26.07.2011
Present: None.
I have given anxious consideration to the controversy in question. The grounds
for condonation of delay mentioned in the case may be summarized as under:-
1. Original documents including the cheque in question were misplaced.
In reply filed by respondent, it has been contended that the ground taken by
complainant is false, baseless and concocted and that complainant failed to provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay.
I consider that the ground raised by the complainant is not sufficient. Interestingly, in the complaint case, the documents were stated to be misplaced. However, no details has been provided in this respect. In the absence of any material to prove and establish the sufficient cause, mere statement of the complainant cannot be treated as sufficient for the condonation of delay. It may be emphasized that section 138 NI Act attracts criminal liability and should be given strict interpretation. Life and liberty of any person cannot be allowed to be interfered with very lightly. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shiva Kumar Vs Natarajan decided on 15.05.2009 has observed as under:-
"10. By reason of the provisions of the Act, a legal presumption in regard to commission of a crime has been raised. The proviso appended thereto, however, states that nothing contained in the main provision would apply unless conditions specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) thereof are complied with. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso, therefore, lay down conditions precedent for applicability of the main provision. Section 138 of the Act being penal in nature, indisputably, warrants strict construction."
In the circumstances, finding the cause not sufficient, the condonation application moved by the complainant is dismissed. Consequently, the complaint is also dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
(Rakesh Kumar Singh) MM-01 (Central) Distt.
Delhi/26.07.2011