Delhi District Court
Aakash Jindal vs . Lalita Agarwal on 25 January, 2018
CR No.592/17
Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal
25.01.2018
ORDER
This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for CR No.592/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1.
"Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.CR No.592/17
Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued four cheques bearing no. 006240,006002, 006227 and 006242 all dated 16.01.2016 for Rs. 5,54,261/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.CR No.592/17
Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.595/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.595/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No.595/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no.005592 and 005598 both dated 03.01.2015 for Rs. 1,55,320/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No.595/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.608/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.608/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No. 608/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued six cheques bearing no.004814, 004824, 004805, 004815, 004934 and 004938 all dated 31.07.2015 for Rs. 7,10,196/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No.608/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.591/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.591/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No.591/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued four cheques bearing no. 005834, 005836, 005835 and 005837 all dated 23.01.2016 for Rs. 14,22,644/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No.591/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.598/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.598/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No.598/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no. 006239 and 006005 both dated 12.01.2016 for Rs. 1,41,814/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No.598/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.599/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.599/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No.599/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued six cheques bearing no. 006231, 006246, 006232, 006247, 005809 and 005822 all dated 26.01.2016 for Rs. 19,94,402/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No.599/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.600/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.600/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No. 600/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no. 006228 and 006243 both dated 14.01.2016 for Rs.2,84,754/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No. 600/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.602/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.602/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No.602/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no. 006229 and 006244 both dated 18.01.2016 for Rs. 2,84,754/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No.602/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.603/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No. 603/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No.603/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no.005810 and 005823 both dated 29.01.2016 for Rs. 84,413/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No.603/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.604/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.604/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No. 604/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no.006230 and 0062245 both dated 25.01.2016 for Rs. 2,84,754/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No. 604/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.605/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of CR No.605/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.
Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent CR No.605/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no.005812 abd 005825 both dated 16.01.2016 for Rs. 84,413/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.
Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by CR No.605/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.606/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for CR No.606/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.CR No.606/17
Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no. 005446 and 005766 both dated 28.12.2015 for Rs. 2,84,754/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.CR No.606/17
Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018 CR No.607/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 25.01.2018 ORDER This is a Revision filed u/s 397 CrPC, for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2017, whereby the revisionist was summoned as an accused for the offence u/s 138 NI Act, by the court of Ms.Vasundhara Chhaunkar, MM04, SE District.
It is stated that the revisionist is working as a licensed broker/agent for some of the most reputed and prestigious banks, government organizations and insurance companies since 1992 to market their fixed deposit schemes and other ancillary services. It is stated that the revisionist is neither the drawer of cheque nor signatory nor director of M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. nor an employee of the company nor he is having control over the day to day affairs of the company which is evident from the documents filed by the respondent herself in the Trial Court. It is stated that the revisionist has no role to play even remotely in cheque dishonour. It is stated that the respondent had invested his money in the schemes of the company knowing full well all the risks and consequences. It is stated that since the revisionist had no role to play that is why the respondent in her complaint had not sought the relief of payment from him. It is stated that Ld. MM has wrongly issued the summons without giving due deliberations to the allegations and without considering the materials placed on record by the respondent before the Trial Court, wherein, the revisionist is only shown as a broker. During the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for CR No.607/17 Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 2 the revisionist has stated that the respondent has filed several cases u/s 138 NI Act against various companies with regard to dishonour of cheques and in other matters the same court as well as the court of Sh. Gagandeep Jindal, Ld. MM had not summoned the revisionist, holding that no prima facie case is made out against him though the allegations against the revisionist in those revision petitions are also similar. He has filed the certified copies of summoning order in all those matters. It is stated that against the said order the respondent has chosen not to prefer an appeal. Hence, it is prayed that the legality of the impugned order dated 12.05.2017 be examined and the order be set aside.
On the other hand, in the reply/objection filed by the respondent it is stated that despite receiving the summons, the revisionist did not appear before the concerned MM nor taken notice u/s 251 CrPC to enter his plea of defence. It is stated that by filing the present revision, the revisionist has the intention to halt the progress of revision, even against the other accused persons. It is stated that there is no role of broker as claimed as the fixed deposit was offered by the revisionist as an internal staff agent of the company M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd. It is stated that the revisionist should have appeared before the Trial Court, hence, it is prayed that the revision be dismissed. In support of the arguments, Ld. Counsel for revisionist has cited 1. "Rajesh Aggarwal Vs State and Anr." Crl. M. No. 1996/2010, 7672/2010 (other petitions also clubbed are decided by common order dated 28.07.2010 passed by HMJ Shiv Narayan Dhingra, Delhi High Court), 2. "Ambica Plastopac Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs State & Anr", Cr. M. No. 2698/11, 9619/11, 1468/13, decided on 01.11.2013 by HMJ J. R. Midha.CR No.607/17
Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 3 Heard and perused the Trial court record. The respondent herein, i.e. Lalita Aggarwal had filed a complaint u/s 138 NI Act read with section 141 NI Act, against M/s Vasundhara Steels Ltd., its three directors and the revisionist herein Sh. Akash Jindal. In the complaint, the revisionist is mentioned as authorized broker, who, as per allegations alongwith other accused, persuaded husband of the complainant to invest in accused no. 1. They invested and on the maturity of the FDR, accused no. 2 to 4 had issued two cheques bearing no. 058597 and 058599 both dated 01.11.2015 for Rs. 2,84,754/ in totality, which cheques got bounced on presentation. On this complaint, after taking pre summoning evidence, vide order dated 12.05.2017, Ld. MM Ms. Vasundhara Chhaunkar had summoned all the accused u/s 138 NI Act.
As per Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, is returned unpaid by the bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of N I Act. Section 141 of N I Act pertain to the offences by the companies and provides that if the person committing an offence u/S 138 NI Act is a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was incharge of , and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of offence. The Section provides certain provisos which are now relevant here for the purpose of deciding this revision.CR No.607/17
Aakash Jindal Vs. Lalita Agarwal 4 Admittedly, as per the averments in the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent, the revisionist/accused no. 5 is mentioned as authorized broker of accused no. 1/ company. He is neither the signatory of the cheque nor the Director of the company nor the employee of the company nor the incharge of no responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Ld. Counsel for respondent could not be able to show any document whereby the position of the revisionist more than that of a broker, could be shown. The complainant herself has mentioned him as broker of the company in her complaint and had sought the relief of payment against accused no.2 to
4. Hence, prima facie no case u/s 138 NI Act is made out against the revisionist/accused no. 5 as per the settled law.
A criminal court has no jurisdiction to review its own orders. The authorities cited by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are distinguishable in the facts of the present case seeing the status of the revisionist as the revisionist in the present revision is not a director or related with the affairs of the company but only a broker. Revision is allowed in view of above observations.
Hence, in view of above discussion, the revision filed by the revisionist is allowed. The order dated 12.05.2017 is set aside only qua the summoning of the revisionist/accused no. 5.
File be consigned to record room. TCR be returned. Copy of order be sent to the Trial Court for intimation.
(Renu Bhatnagar) ASJ(Spl. FTC), South East, Saket Court, 25.01.2018