Delhi District Court
Nishi Rastogi vs Reeta Gupta on 30 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF DEEPALI SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE04: EAST DISTRICT:
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
Cr. Rev No. 81/2021
Nishi Rastogi,
W/o Sh. Manoj Rastogi,
R/o H.No. A42, IInd Floor,
Near Sanjay Park, Shakarpur,
Delhi110092.
.........Petitioner
Versus
Reeta Gupta,
W/o Sandeep Gupta,
R/o D235A, Second Floor,
Gate No. 10, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi110092.
..........Respondent
Date of Institution : 30.09.2021
Date of reserving Judgment : 30.09.2021
Date of pronouncement : 30.09.2021
Appearances
For the petitioner : Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh, adv.
For the respondent : None
JUDGMENT:
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2021 Page no. 1/8
1. The present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner for setting aside order dated 24.08.2021 and the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate in Criminal Complaint Case No. 46452 of 2016, under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It is stated that the petitioner is facing trial in above mentioned complaint case before Ld. M.M., wherein after conclusion of evidence of the complainant, statement of the petitioner was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and the petitioner submitted the list of witnesses in support of his case on 28.02.2019. Subsequently, on 06.02.2020, the evidence of petitioner/accused was closed. On 12.03.2020 the petitioner moved an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for calling the witnesses, which was declined. The matter was listed for final arguments and vide order dated 16.03.2021 the Ld. M.M. was pleased to close right of the petitioner to address arguments. The matter was listed for final arguments on 20.08.2021. It is stated that due to prevailing pandemic, the proceedings of the court were conducted through video conferencing and thereafter on many occasions due to technical reasons, either the counsel or the petitioner could not join video conferencing, so eventually Ld. M.M. was pleased to adjourn the case for final arguments for 20.08.2021. It is further stated that on Cr. Rev. No. 81/2021 Page no. 2/8 some dates, the petitioner could not appear due to her medical condition and her medical certificate were also sent to the Reader of the court. Subsequently, on 19.08.2021 the counsel for the counsel for petitioner filed written submission alongwith an application for taking them on record. As 20.08.2021 was declared a holiday, the case was taken on 21.08.2021 and the Ld. M.M. adjourned the case for 24.08.2021. Vide order dated 24.08.2021, Ld. M.M. dismissed the application of petitioner/accused for taking on record written submissions and on the same day i.e. on 24.08.2021 an order was passed whereby the Ld. M.M. was pleased to convict the petitioner and adjourned the case for arguments on sentence for 30.09.2021. It is argued that the petitioner is aggrieved as the written submissions filed by it were not taken on record and same were not considered despite the fact that the same were filed prior to passing order of conviction on 24.08.2021.
3. The petitioner has therefore assailed the order of Ld. M.M. on the ground that Ld. M.M. ought to have considered the written submissions and judgments relied upon by the petitioner before passing final order in this matter. It is also argued that due to prevailing pandemic the petitioner could not join the video conferencing due to technical difficulties and same fact ought to be Cr. Rev. No. 81/2021 Page no. 3/8 considered by Ld. M.M. before any judgment was passed in this matter. It is urged that the Ld. M.M. has passed the judgment without hearing the petitioner and without considering written submissions filed by her and caused miscarriage of justice. In support of his arguments Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, 1955 AIR(SC) 425. It is accordingly prayed that the order dated 24.08.2021 and the order dated 16.03.2021 passed by Ld. M.M. may be set aside.
4. I have heard the submissions of the ld. counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that vide order dated 16.03.2021 the Ld. M.M. had closed the opportunity to file written arguments or advancing final arguments and listed the matter for orders on 15.04.2021. The order dated 16.03.2021 of the Ld. M.M. placed on record by the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:
"Present: Complainant in person with counsel Sh. H.S.Solanki.
None for accused.
Matter is at the stage of final arguments. None has appeared on behalf of accused despite wait and repeated calls since morning. Already sufficient opportunities have Cr. Rev. No. 81/2021 Page no. 4/8 been granted to the accused to file written arguments or advance final arguments. Granting of any further opportunity is not justified. Hence, the right of the accused stands closed.
Arguments already heard on behalf of complainant. Be listed for clarifications, if any, or else for orders on 15.04.2021.
(RENU CHAUDHARY) MM04/East/KKD/Delhi/16.03.2021"
6. Subsequently on 24.08.2021 Ld. M.M. passed the following orders :
"Present: Complainant in person with Ld. Counsel Sh.H.S.Solanki.
Sh. A.K.Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused. Matter is listed for orders/arguments. Ld. Counsel for accused submits that he had filed written submissions at the official email I.D. of the Court on the LDOH & prays that the same be taken on record.
As per records, sufficient opportunities were given to the accused to advance arguments & to file written arguments but the accused failed to comply with the directions of the Court & hence the right of the accused to advance final arguments & to file written arguments was closed by the Court orders on 16.03.2021. Since then, the matter is pending at the stage of pronouncement of judgment as the accused was not appearing before the Court despite repeated directions/orders. Therefore, the written submission are not taken on record. Prayer declined.
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2021 Page no. 5/8 The accused has not appeared before the Court despite issuance of bailable warrants on LDOH.
Ld. Counsel for accused seeks passover stating that accused is on the way and shall reached the Court in half an hour.
Heard.
Passover granted.
Put up at 11.00 am.
(RENU CHAUDHARY) MM04/East/KKD/Delhi/24.08.2021 At 11.05 a.m. Present: Complainant in person with Ld. Counsel Sh.H.S.Solanki.
Accused in person with Ld. Counsel Sh. A.K.Singh. File is taken up again as the accused has appeared before the Court.
Vide separate judgment of even date, pronounced in the open Court today, accused Nishi Rastogi is hereby convicted for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Put up for arguments on quantum of sentence on 30.09.2021 (date is given as per the request & convenience of Ld. Counsel for accused).
(RENU CHAUDHARY) MM04/East/KKD/Delhi/24.08.2021"
7. On the same day i.e. on 24.08.2021, Ld. M.M. pronounced the judgment in the matter whereby the petitioner Nishi Rastogi was Cr. Rev. No. 81/2021 Page no. 6/8 convicted for the offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the matter was listed for arguments on sentence for 30.09.2021 i.e. for today.
8. It is also worthy to be noted that after closing the opportunity to file written arguments or advancing final arguments vide order dated 16.03.2021, the matter was listed for orders on 15.04.2021. From the order dated 16.03.2021 it is apparent that the arguments in the matter stood concluded on 16.03.2021 and the matter on that day was adjourned for orders for 15.04.2021. The written submissions are stated to have been filed by the petitioner/accused on 19.08.2021, admittedly, after five months of the matter being listed for orders. Eventually the Ld. M.M. passed the judgment on 24.08.2021 convicting he petitioner and listed the matter for arguments on sentence for 30.09.2021 i.e. for today. It is note worthy that the petitioner has not challenged the order of 16.03.2021 till passing of judgment against her in the present matter and it is only after the judgment was pronounced against her that she preferred the present revision petition challenging the order dated 16.03.2021. In this regard it would be relevant to consider that an order declining to take on record the written submissions is in the nature of an interlocutory order and hence, not a revisable order. (Amar Nath vs. State of Cr. Rev. No. 81/2021 Page no. 7/8 Haryana, 1978(1) SCR 222 and Madhu Limye vs. State of Maharashtra, 1978(1) SCR 749, referred to.) The judgment relied upon by the counsel in th matter of Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah (Supra) is in the context of Order 9, Rules 6, 7 and 13 CPC and is not applicable while exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the court.
9. It is also worthy to be noted that once the judgment has been pronounced in the matter, all the orders/interim orders passed in the matter would merge with the judgment. Therefore, at this stage once the judgment has been announced in the present matter on 24.08.2021, there is no occasion to interfere with the orders passed in the matter by way of the present revision petition. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition is dismissed.
10. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
11. Copy of judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
(Pronounced in the open Court ( Deepali Sharma ) on 30.09.2021) Additional Sessions Judge04 East District, Court No. 10 Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
Cr. Rev. No. 81/2021 Page no. 8/8