Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohinder Singh Narang vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 16 August, 2018
Criminal Revision No.150/2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. : 150/2018
Under Section : 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
CC No. : 1979/16
PS : Preet Vihar
CNR No. : DLET01-005064-2018
In the matter of :-
SH. MOHINDER SINGH NARANG
Eastern Overseas Embroidery Pvt. Ltd.,
R/o. F-99, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden, Delhi-110020.
............PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
.........RESPONDENT
Date of Institution : 31.07.2018
Date of reserving order : 16.08.2018
Date of pronouncement : 16.08.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
ORDER
1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 26.07.2018, passed by trial court in a complaint case titled as M/s. Rana Enterprises v. M/s. Eastern Embroidery Pvt. Ltd., bearing CC No. 1979/2016, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to a the Act). Vide impugned order dated 26.07.2018, trial court rejected the application for cancellation of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C and in pursuance of its earlier order dated 08.02.2018 declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender, directed SHO concerned to take appropriate action against Managing Director of M/s. Eastern Embroidery Pvt. Ltd. i.e. Mohinder Singh Page 1 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.150/2018 Narang (petitioner herein).
BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Sh. Raj Kumar, being proprietor of M/s. Rana Enterprises filed a complaint for offence under Section 138 of NI Act against M/s.
Eastern Embroidery Pvt. Ltd., having its Managing Director Sh. Mahender Singh Narang. During the course of trial, trial court declared accused as absconder vide order dated 08.02.2018. Thereafter, an application seeking cancellation of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C was moved on behalf of Mohinder Singh Narang. However, trial court vide impugned order dated 26.07.2018 dismissed that application and directed SHO concerned to take appropriate action against Mohinder Singh Narang, Managing Director of M/s. Eastern Embroidery Pvt. Ltd. GROUNDS : -
3. Being aggrieved of the impugned order, petitioner has preferred this revision petition on the following relevant grounds :-
● That trial court failed to give appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to appear and let him contest the case. ● That on 19.11.2014 trial court ordered for notice upon PF/RC to petitioner and adjourned the same for 11.03.2015 for report on PF/RC. In compliance of said order, on 05.03.2015 process/server visited address as provided by complainant i.e. M/s. Eastern Embroidery Pvt. Ltd., A-254, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, Delhi- 110020. That on 11.03.2015 process server filed his report that "ye firm yaha se chali gai". Thereafter, complainant furnished fresh address of petitioner i.e. B-49, Sector-57, Noida, U.P and on this address also process server visited on 30.06.2016, but service Page 2 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.150/2018 could not be made to petitioner.
● That trial court failed to appreciate the report of process server dated 30.06.2016, in which summons to petitioner were received back unserved. Trial court despite report of process server, observed that accused is avoiding the process of law deliberately and knowingly and issued bailable warrant on 01.07.2016, NBW on 11.11.2016 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C on 09.01.2017, against the petitioner. Trial court on 08.02.2018 declared petitioner as proclaimed offender.
● That trial court failed to appreciate the report of process server Ranvir Singh for execution of NBW, who stated that on the said address one person namely Abhishek Kumar Thakur met him, who was one of the staff of the company Ground Cure Healthcare (P) Ltd. and he stated that Mr. Mohinder Singh Narang had sold this property in December, 2014. Despite this fact, trial court proceeded to initiate the proceedings under Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. against petitioner.
● That trial court failed to appreciate that fair trial is main objective of criminal procedure and it is duty of the court to ensure that such fairness is not hampered or threatened in any manner. ● That impugned order was passed in contravention to the principle of natural justice and without affording any opportunity to lead the defence to petitioner in order to get complete justice under law. APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FINDINGS AS WELL AS DECISION :-
4. The brief question involved in this petition is that whether order dated 26.07.2018, thereby rejecting the application for cancellation of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C, suffers from any illegality? The trial Page 3 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.150/2018 court record shows that petitioner herein was already declared an absconder vide order dated 08.02.2018. In the background of such development, ld. MM rejected the aforesaid application observing that no legal provision was shown for cancellation of process under Section 82 Cr.P.C, once it was duly executed. Even before this court, ld. counsel for petitioner could not point out any legal provision, which could empower the MM to set aside its own order thereby declaring the petitioner as absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. I have perused provisions under chapter VI Part C of Cr.P.C ranging from Section 82 to 86. There is no provision at all for recalling of an order of declaration passed under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, apparently ld. MM could not have recalled order dated 08.02.2018, vide which petitioner was already declared an absconder. Therefore, I do not find any legal infirmity in order dated 26.07.2018.
5. Petitioner in the present petition has taken plea, which could assail order dated 08.02.2018, but that order has not been specifically challenged before this court, in this revision petition. Therefore, it is not appropriate for the court to look into the plea taken in the grounds of revision, so as to find any fault in order dated 26.07.2018. I do not intend to look into the legality of order dated 08.02.2018 in this revision petition, also for the reasons of limitation to challenge such order. This revision was filed beyond limitation period, so as to challenge order dated 08.02.2018 and in that situation, it was for the petitioner to explain the reasons for the delay and to seek condonation of the same, before the court could look into legality of order dated 08.02.2018. It is not appropriate for this court to suo moto find some bona fide reasons on the part of petitioner to challenge order dated 08.02.2018 belatedly (even though it is not so Page 4 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision No.150/2018 specifically challenged in this petition), so as to condone the delay and look into merits of order dated 08.02.2018.
6. In view of my foregoing discussions, observations and findings, present revision petition is dismissed.
7. TCR along with copy of order be sent back. Revision file be consigned to record room, as per rules.Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PULASTYA Location: Court No.3,
PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi
Date: 2018.08.16
16:44:03 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 16.08.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East
(This order contains 5 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page 5 of 5 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi