Delhi District Court
Mrs. Gunjan Chadha vs . on 30 April, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
Criminal Revision NO: 18/11
COMPLAINT CASE NO.272/1
U/s138 NI ACT
SHRI PRAVEEN KAMAL
Vs.
M/S SHIV SHAKTI APPARELS
& OTHERS
IN THE MATTER OF
Mrs. Gunjan Chadha
W/o Shri Sanjeev Chadha
R/o B42, First Floor,
Moti Nagar,
New Delhi15. ..... REVISIONIST/ ACCUSED
vs.
Shri Praveen Kamal
Prop. of M/s Sujata Fabrics
Presently having office at
6199, Basement Floor, Gali No.2,
Block No.1, Dev Nagar,
New Delhi5. ...... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
Date of Institution : 11.02.11
Date of final argument : 30.04.11
Date of final order : 30.04.11
REVISION PETITION AGAINST ORDER DATED 12.5.2010
PASSED IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.272/1 TITLE SHRI PRAVEEN
KAMAL Vs. M/S SHIV SHAKTI APPARELS & OTHERS
ORDER
1. This revision is preferred by revisionist / accused against the order of LD. MM dated 12/5/10 whereby in a 138 NI Act complaint, file by complainant / respondent herein, he had moved an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of complaint and Ld. MM had 2 simply, while relying on judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, issued notice of that application for granting the revisionist / accused an opportunity of being heard.
2. I have heard LD. Counsel Mohd. Babar advocate for revisionist and Ld. Counsel Sh. Khurshid Alam advocate for respondent. I have carefully perused the revision file and TCR as well.
3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this revision is that respondent preferred a complaint U/s 138 NI Act after one cheque issued in the name of M/s Shiv Shakti Apparels was dishonoured for "insufficient fund" and no payment was made to him despite issuance of demand notice U/s 138 (h) NI Act. Since there was delay of around 2 days in filing of the complaint, complainant / respondent preferred an application seeking condonation thereof. On the very first date when the fresh complaint was received by Ld. MM, he simply issued a notice of its condonation application to the revisionist / accused for affording her an opportunity of being 3 heard in terms of order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5930/2005 titled Prashant Goel Vs. State and Another.
4. It is this order which is being assailed under the revision in hand. Not only this order has not caused any prejudice to the revisionist in so far as she has admittedly not been summoned as an accused but also this order is an interlocutory order qua which no revision can be maintained. No valuable right of either the party has been decided or adjudicated thereupon.
5. As such this revision is wholly devoid of merits and is also not maintainable. Rather this revision is abuse of process of law and same is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.6000/ to be paid by the revisionist to the respondent by way of draft within one week. Revision petition stands dismissed, revision file be consigned to RR and TCR with copy of this order be sent to Ld. MM. Announced and dictated in open Court on : 30/4/2011 (SURINDER S. RATHI) ASJ02/CENTRAL DELHI: 30.4.2011 4 Criminal Revision NO: 18/11 COMPLAINT CASE NO.272/1 U/s 138 NI ACT SHRI PRAVEEN KAMAL Vs. M/S SHIV SHAKTI APPARELS & OTHERS 30.4.2011 Pr: LD. Counsel Mohd. Babar advocate for revisionist Ld. Counsel Sh. Khurshid Alam advocate for respondent Submissions heard from both the sides at length and file perused.
Vide a separate order of the day, the revision petition of the revisionist stands dismissed being not maintainable and devoid of merits with cost of Rs.6000/ to be paid by the revisionist to respondent by way of draft within one week. Revision file be consigned to RR and TCR with copy of this order be sent back to Ld.MM.
(SURINDER S. RATHI) ASJ02/CENTRAL DELHI: 30.4.2011