Delhi District Court
In Re vs Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh on 12 May, 2017
Crl. Revision No. 56364/2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. SMITA GARG,
ADDITIONALSESSIONS JUDGEFTC, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Crl. Revision No. 56364/2016
In re:
Smt. Dimpy Nangia
W/o Sh. Narinder Nangia
R/o B124, Sarvodaya Enclave,
New Delhi ......... Revisionist
Versus
Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh
S/o Sh. Inderjeet Singh
R/o D60, Fateh Nagar,
Jail Road, New Delhi ...... Respondent
Date of filing of revision petition : 26.10.2016
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 12.05.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. This revision petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC') lays challenge to order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the application of the revisionist/accused seeking discharge of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 (for short " the Act") was dismissed.
2. The brief background which led to the present proceedings is that the Dimpy Nangia v. Ravinder Pal Singh Page No. 1 / 8 Crl. Revision No. 56364/2016 respondent/complainant herein instituted a complaint case under Section 138 of the Act against the revisionist/accused averring that the revisionist had entered into an agreement to sell with him for the sale of her built up property bearing no. N25 and N26 admeasuring 300 sq. yards situated in the area of Revenue Estate of Village Rajpur Khurd, Hargobind Enclave, New Delhi on 30.05.2008. A sum of Rs. 20,00,000/ was paid as earnest money, which was acknowledged by the revisionist by issuing a receipt. The respondent also paid a further amount of Rs. 5 lac in cash to the revisionist on 30.10.2008. Since the revisionist avoided to execute the sale documents, the respondent got issued a legal notice to her on 06.08.2010. Upon being served with the notice, the revisionist entered into a settlement/memorandum of understanding on 21.08.2010 with the respondent and issued a cheque bearing no. 538630 dated 21.08.2010 for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/ drawn on Punjab and Sind Bank, Green Park Extension, being double the amount of the earnest money received from the respondent. When the respondent presented the cheque for encashment, it was returned unpaid on 26.10.2010 with the remark 'Refer to Drawer'. The respondent then sent a legal notice dated 01.11.2010 under Section 138 NI Act to the revisionist asking for the payment of the cheque amount but she failed to make the payment which compelled the respondent to approach the court.
Dimpy Nangia v. Ravinder Pal Singh Page No. 2 / 8 Crl. Revision No. 56364/20163. Vide order dated 22.09.2014, the revisionist was summoned. On receiving the summons, the revisionist filed a Crl. M.C. No. 1855/2015 before Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing of the proceedings before the Ld. MM. The said petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court on 05.05.2015 with the direction that the revisionist shall raise the pleas taken before the trial court at the hearing on the point of framing of Notice under Section 251 CrPC. Accordingly, the revisionist preferred an application under Section 258 CrPC before the Ld. MM on 08.03.2016.
4. In the application, the revisionist alleged that her husband Sh.
Narinder Nangia had borrowed a loan of Rs. 70,00,000/ from Sh. Harjinder Pal Singh (i.e. the brother of the respondent) in July, 2007. Later on, Sh. Harjinder Pal Singh also advanced a sum of Rs. 7,40,000/ by way of pay order dated 30.05.2008 to the revisionist so as to help her husband. At the time of advancing the above amounts, Sh. Harjinder Pal Singh had obtained various blank stamp papers and blank undated signed cheques from the revisionist and her husband as collateral security. The said stamp papers were forged and converted into purported agreement to sell for a total sale consideration of Rs. 30,00,000/ in respect of properties no. N25 and N26 admeasuring 300 sq. yards situated in the area of Revenue Estate of Village Rajpur Khurd, Hargobind Enclave, New Delhi by Sh. Harjinder Pal Singh in connivance with the respondent, Sh. Jagjit Dimpy Nangia v. Ravinder Pal Singh Page No. 3 / 8 Crl. Revision No. 56364/2016 Singh and Sh. H.S. Mehta with the intention to usurp the said properties of the respondent. The forged agreement to sell was further supported by another forged document i.e. memorandum of understanding dated 21.08.2010 wherein it was mentioned that the revisionist had agreed to refund vide cheque no. 538360 dated 21.08.2010 a sum of Rs. 50 lac, which was double the amount of earnest money of Rs. 25,00,000/ received from the respondent against the agreement to sell. The revisionist alleged that the cheque in question is one of the blank signed undated cheques obtained from her by Sh. Harjinder Pal Singh, which has been misused by the respondent to file the complaint case under Section 138 NI Act against her.
5. Vide the impugned order, Ld. MM dismissed the application under Section 258 CrPC and directed for framing of Notice under Section 251 CrPC against the revisionist for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. Aggrieved therefrom, the revisionist is before this court.
6. I have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the trial court record.
7. The counsel for the revisionist has assailed the impugned order by contending that the trial court erred in opining that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act can be rebutted only during the course Dimpy Nangia v. Ravinder Pal Singh Page No. 4 / 8 Crl. Revision No. 56364/2016 of trial and committed a jurisdictional error by not considering the documents relied upon by the revisionist which show that the allegations in the complaint are highly improbable. He submitted that the trial court failed to appreciate that the liability of the revisionist would have arisen only if the cheque in question had been issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt but the transaction in present case is based on unaccounted cash transactions and the respondent had failed to produce any document to show that the amounts of Rs. 12,50,000/ and Rs. 5,00,000/ allegedly paid in cash by him on 30.05.2008 and on 21.08.2010 respectively were duly accounted for in his books of accounts. He has contended that the falsity of the claim of the respondent is apparent from the fact that while in paragraph no. 4 of the agreement to sell dated 30.05.2008, it had been mentioned that the original documents of the property as well as the possession of the property had been handed over to the respondent, in the legal notice, the respondent had asked the revisionist to accept the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 5 lac and execute the sale documents alongwith handing over of title documents and possession of the property to him. The counsel for the revisionist further argued that in respect of the alleged sale transaction, the respondent had got an FIR No. 831/14 registered against the revisionist wherein a cancellation report has been filed by the investigating agency on the basis of the report of Finger Print Bureau to the effect that the thumb impressions on the agreement to Dimpy Nangia v. Ravinder Pal Singh Page No. 5 / 8 Crl. Revision No. 56364/2016 sell dated 30.05.2008 were obtained on blank pages prior to the typing of the contents which confirms fabrication thereof. He has submitted that the trial court also ignored that ACP, EOW, New Delhi had filed a status report before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 04.08.2014 qua FIR No. 236/13 registered against Harjinder Pal Singh and others wherein it was stated that Harjinder Pal Singh is a money lander and he, in complicity with his brother Ravinder Pal Singh and two others, used to trap the borrowers and that in the name of securing the loan, used to obtain their signatures on blank stamp papers and blank cheques. The counsel for the revisionist submitted that in view of all the above material, the trial court ought to have discharged the revisionist.
On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent argued that all the pleas raised by the revisionist in her application under Section 258 CrPC and the documents relied upon by her were the matter of trial and thus the Ld. MM rightly dismissed the application by observing that the same can not be determined without trial. She submitted that there is no illegality or irregularity in the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the Ld. MM and therefore, no interference is called for.
8. The premise on which the revisionist had sought discharge is that the cheque in question was not issued by her towards refund of double the amount of the earnest money allegedly received by her from the Dimpy Nangia v. Ravinder Pal Singh Page No. 6 / 8 Crl. Revision No. 56364/2016 respondent in respect of the sale transaction but had been handed over in blank as collateral security to Sh. Harjinder Pal Singh at the time of availing loan of Rs. 7,40,000/ in May, 2008. Alongwith her application under Section 258 CrPC, the revisionist had not filed any document to show that the transaction in question was a loan transaction. Apart from the documents relied upon by the respondent, the only other documents filed by the revisionist in support of her application were the copies of FSL report dated 02.12.2015 and status report dated 04.08.2014 filed by ACP, EOW before the Hon'ble High Court in WP (Crl.) No. 956/14 titled as 'Harjinder Pal Singh v. State & Ors.' in respect of FIR No. 236/13 under Section 420/467/468/471/120B IPC P.S EOW. It is not in dispute that the case arising out of FIR No. 236/13 P.S EOW is still pending adjudication before the court concerned. As far as the cancellation report filed by the investigating agency in FIR No. 831/14 P.S Hari Nagar registered at the instance of the respondent is concerned, the said report is yet to be accepted by the court concerned. Considering the same, the trial court held rightly observed that the above said documents are not the final word qua the authenticity of the agreement to sell dated 30.05.2008 relied upon by the respondent. Needless to say, the source from which the respondent paid the amounts of Rs. 12,50,000/ and Rs. 5,00,000/ to the revisionist on 30.05.2008 and 21.08.2010 respectively can be ascertained during the course of trial. All the pleas taken by the revisionist in her Dimpy Nangia v. Ravinder Pal Singh Page No. 7 / 8 Crl. Revision No. 56364/2016 application under Section 258 CrPC pertain to her defence and would be required to be proved by her by leading evidence. Since the issuance of cheque in question and the signatures of the revisionist thereon were not in dispute and the revisionist had also failed to respond to the legal notice dated 01.11.2010 under Section 138 NI Act, prima facie, sufficient material was available on record for framing the notice under Section 251 CrPC against her.
For the foregoing reasons, I find no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 13.10.2016 passed by the Ld. MM. The revision petition is without merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
File of the revision petition be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Smita Garg)
on 12.05.2017 Addl. Sessions JudgeFTC,(West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Dimpy Nangia v. Ravinder Pal Singh Page No. 8 / 8