Delhi District Court
Naveen Kumar Malhotra vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 26 September, 2018
Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017,
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) CBI : EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision : 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017,
Nos. 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017.
Under Section : 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Police Station : Shakarpur
CC Nos. : 51485/2016, 51448/2016, 51428/2016,
51429/2016, 51449/2016, 51311/2016,
51310/2016, 51314/2016 & 51460/2016,
CNR Nos. : DLET01-004638-2017, DLET01-004640-2017,
DLET01-004641-2017, DLET01-004642-2017,
DLET01-004639-2017, DLET01-004643-2017,
DLET01-004644-2017, DLET01-008932-2017
& DLET01-008931-2017.
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 80/2017
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 15.04.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
Page 1 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017,
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 81/2017 :-
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 15.04.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 82/2017 :-
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 15.04.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
Page 2 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017,
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 83/2017 :-
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 15.04.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 84/2017 :-
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 15.04.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
Page 3 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017,
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 85/2017 :-
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 15.04.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 86/2017 :-
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 15.04.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
Page 4 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017,
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 185/2017 :-
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 03.08.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
In the matter of Criminal Revision No. 186/2017 :-
NAVEEN KUMAR MALHOTRA
S/o Sh. R.L. Malhotra
R/o F-86, First Floor, Sun City,
Sector - 54,
Gurgaon. ............PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. STATE (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. SH. GULSHAN SETHI
R/o G-116, Preet Vihar,
Delhi. ..........RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution : 03.08.2017
Date of Receiving : 05.09.2018
Date of reserving judgment : 17.09.2018
Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2018
Decision : Petition is dismissed.
Page 5 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017,
ORDER
1. By this common order, I shall decide all the nine revision petitions, out of which first seven revision petitions bearing CR No. 80/2017, CR No. 81/2017, CR No. 82/2017, CR No. 83/2017, CR No. 84/2017, CR No. 85/2017 & CR No. 86/2017 are directed against the order dated 20.03.2017, whereas remaining two revision petitions bearing CR No. 185/2017 & CR No. 186/2017 are directed against order dated 22.05.2017, passed by trial court in different complaint cases, all titled as Gulshan Sethi v. Naveen Malhotra, bearing CC Nos. 51485/2016, 51448/2016, 51428/2016, 51429/2016, 51449/2016, 51311/2016, 51310/2016, 51314/2016 & 51460/2016, under Section 138 N.I. Act, PS Shakarpur. Vide impugned orders, trial court disposed off the application of the petitioner herein thereby rejecting plea of the petitioner that since complaint in FIR No. 485/14 was filed prior to the aforementioned complaint cases, hence, the case under FIR No. 485/14, PS Safdarjung Enclave be tried first and thereafter, trial in aforesaid complaint cases be held. However, vide impugned order, ld. trial court observed that after conclusion of evidence and hearing arguments in the aforesaid complaint cases u/s 138 NI Act, the judgment in the nine aforementioned complaints would be reserved and thereafter trial in FIR No. 485/14, PS Safdarjung Enclave, would commence.
BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE :-
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts giving rise to the petitions in hand are that petitioner herein is facing trial in above mentioned 9 complaint cases for offence u/s 138 N.I. Act. Respondent no. 2 is complainant in all these complaint cases. Petitioner has taken a plea that he had lodged a complaint in PS Safdarjung Enclave prior in time of above-
Page 6 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017, mentioned complaint cases being filed by respondent no. 2 on the basis of his complaint, FIR no. 485/14 was subsequently registered in PS Safdarjung Enclave, wherein he has alleged about the cheques involved in above-mentioned complaint cases, being extorted from him by respondent no. 2 herein. Petitioner approached High Court of Delhi u/s 407 Cr.P.C. read with section 482 Cr.P.C., thereby seeking transfer of all the complaint cases against him to the court of M.M. Saket, wherein trial in FIR no. 485/14 was pending. 9 such petitions were filed before High Court of Delhi in transfer petition no. 72/16, 73/16 and 74/16, vide order dated 09.01.17 directed for transfer of case under FIR no. 485/14 PS Safdarjung Enclave to the court of MM in KKD, where 9 complaint cases u/s 138 NI Act were pending. Petitioner herein had also sought stay over trial in the complaint cases u/s 138 NI Act. However, Hon'ble High Court left it open for the MM to decide the order in which the cases should be proceeded. Following this particular order in other 6 transfer petitions, another bench of High Court of Delhi vide order dated 10.02.2017 passed similar directions. The above-mentioned complaint cases are at the stage of cross-examination of complainant since the year 2014. Petitioner herein moved the application in question before ld. MM, which was dismissed vide impugned orders.
GROUNDS : -
3. The petitioners in nine revision petitions have challenged the impugned order mainly on the following relevant grounds :-
● That impugned order is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside as trial court failed to appreciate the fact in issue whether the cheques in issue were obtained from the petitioner herein out of extortion or same were issued against an existing liability. To Page 7 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017, decide this issue, trial of FIR case would have helped ld. Trial court to adjudicate the complaint cases properly. ● That ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that the trial in 9 complaint cases was likely to take much more time as compared to the trial of a single FIR case as the same would be tried as summon cases and not summary cases. Thus, applying the same logic Hon'ble High Court of Delhi transferred the trial of one FIR case from Saket Court to Karkardooma Court, rather than transferring 9 complaint cases from Karkardooma Court to Saket Court. ● That ld. Trial court failed to apply ratio of judgment in the case of Mona Modi v. Reuben Solomon, wherein in similar circumstances with identical facts, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, had directed that the trial in the FIR case be concluded first and thereafter only the trial in the complaint case was directed to be commenced and thus, ld. MM failed to maintain the judicial discipline by ignoring the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which was binding on all the district courts of Delhi. ● That ld. Trial court in the impugned order erred in observing that 'thus it would be inappropriate to pause the cross-examination of the complainant in the present case for an indefinite time and proceed with the trial in FIR no. 485/14 PS Safdarjung Enclave." Further "Moreover this court presently does not have any public prosecutor assigned to this court, hence, the court has to take steps for getting assigned a public prosecutor for prosecuting FIR No. 485/14 PS Safdarjung Enclave. This in itself will take some time. Thus, keeping in view the above considerations, the court deems fit...........".
● That the ld. MM failed to appreciate that the object of every Page 8 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017, criminal trial is the 'discovery of truth' and by passing impugned order, ld. MM delayed the discovery of truth by a few years. ● That ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that the FIR case is too old involving incidents beginning from 2007 onwards and with the passage of time the memory of the witnesses is bound to fade whereas the offence u/s 138 NI Act, having limited number of witness and being technical in nature, it would have been appropriate that trial in FIR could finish first before trial in 9 complaint cases.
ARGUMENTS :-
4. Both parties relied upon certain judgments, which are as follows:
Ld. counsel for petitioner relied upon following judgments:-
● Mona Modi v. Reuben Solomon, Crl. M.C. No. 3033/2004 decided on 21.02.20018 by Delhi High Court; ● Nathi Lal & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr., 1990 (Supp.) SCC 145; ● Rajesh Agarwal v. State & Anr., 171 (2010) DLT 51; ● Raminder Kaur Bedi v. Jatinder Singh Bedi, 1989 (16) DRJ 154;
● Asha Jain v. State & Ors., Crl. No. 15/2015 dated 05.08.2015.
5. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 relied upon following judgments:-
● Nathi Lal & Ors. v. State of UP & Anr., 1990 (Supp.) SCC 145; ● Sudhir & Ors. v. State of MP, 2001 2 SCC 688;
● State of MP v. Mishrilal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2003 9 SCC 426;
● Indian Bank Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2014 5 SCC 590;
● Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & Anr. 2012, 9 SCC 460; ● Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, 2009 5 SCC 153;
Page 9 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017, ● State and ors. v. NMT Joy Immaculate 2004 5 SCC 729; APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS AS WELL AS DECISION :-
6. During arguments ld. Counsel for petitioner argued that the complaint was lodged by petitioner prior to filing of above mentioned complaint cases by respondent no. 2 and as counter blast of that complaint, respondent no. 2 had presented the cheques for encashment and thereafter 9 complaint cases were filed against the petitioner. He further submitted that if trial court came to find that there was extortion of cheques in question, then the case for offence u/s 138 NI Act would not lie. He further submitted that these are not cross-cases and hence, the trial in FIR no. 485/14 should be conducted before proceeding further in the complaint cases.
7. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that trial court has passed correct order as per circumstances. He further submitted that the reliance placed by the petitioner over the orders passed by the High Court in the case of Mona Modi (supra) is misconceived because orders were passed on different set of facts and under different circumstances. He further submitted that High Court did not discuss the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Nathi Lal (Supra) and hence that case law is not applicable in the present matter. He further submitted that impugned orders are interlocutory in nature, therefore, this revision is not maintainable as no substantial right of the petitioner was decided.
8. Before looking into the factual aspects, it would be appropriate to deal with question of maintainability of these revision petitions. Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. provides that a revision shall not lie against an interlocutory order. The term interlocutory order had been subject Page 10 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017, matter of deliberation before Supreme Court in number of cases and while dealing with such term in the case of Amar Nath & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr., (1977) 4 SCC 137, Supreme Court held that "Thus, for instance, orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code."
9. Similarly, in the case of Central Bank of India v. Gokul Chand, AIR 1967 SC 799, Supreme Court ruled that "orders regarding the summoning of witnesses, discovery, production and inspection of documents, issue of commission for examination of witnesses, inspection of premises, fixing a date of hearing and the admissibility of the document on the relevancy of a question, all these interlocutory orders are steps taken towards the final adjudications and for assisting the parties in the prosecution of their cases in the pending proceedings. They regulate the procedure only and do not affect any right or liability of the parties."
10.In the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra ((1977) 4 SCC 551), Supreme Court came up with the concept of intermediate order and the court was dealing with the question of challenge to the jurisdiction of the court and in the background of that situation, it was stated by Supreme Court that there may be an order passed during the course of proceedings, which may not be final, but yet it may not be an interlocutory order.
11.The impugned orders herein did not deal with any substantive right of petitioner as such. Vide these orders, ld. MM had only decided the order in which the trial was to be conducted in the cases. It is worth Page 11 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Revision Nos. 80/2017, 81/2017, 82/2017, 83/2017, 84/2017, 85/2017, 86/2017, 185/2017 & 186/2017, to mention here that such option was given by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to ld. MM in above-mentioned proceedings, so as to take a final call and even High Court did not accept the prayer of the petitioner so as to stay the proceedings in complaint cases till trial in FIR no. 485/14 is completed. Ld. MM took a decision on the basis of present stage of both kind of cases, so as to decide the order to proceed further. Petitioner cannot have a vested right to decide the order, in which trial is to be conducted in these cases. Reliance over order passed in the case of Mona Modi (supra) is misconceived because petitioner did seek such relief before Hon'ble High Court also, but did not succeed. Thus, ld. MM did not decide any substantive right of the petitioner. In that situation the nature of impugned order has to be treated merely as interlocutory order. Therefore, I am in agreement with contention of respondent no. 2 that these revision petitions are not maintainable. In such situation, I do not find any occasion to look into the merit of other contentions of the parties and hence all revision petitions are dismissed.
12.TCR alongwith copy of this common order be sent back to the trial court. File be consigned to record room, as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYA PRAMACHALA PULASTYA Location: Court No.3,
PRAMACHALA Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi
Date: 2018.09.26
17:35:46 +0530
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA)
today on 26.09.2018 Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East
(This order contains 12 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
Page 12 of 12 (Pulastya Pramachala)
Special Judge (PC Act) CBI, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi