Delhi District Court
Mr. Ramesh Kumar vs Smt. Rajni Kaur on 12 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR MATTO, SPECIAL JUDGE
(NDPS), ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTHWEST DISCTRICT,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of :
CR Rev. No. 126/2017
Mr. Ramesh Kumar
S/o Late Shri Garib Dass,
H.No.G999, Shakurpur,
Anand Vass,
Delhi. ... Petitioner/accused.
Versus
Smt. Rajni Kaur,
W/o Late Shri Rajbir Singh,
R/o H.No.1941, Mangolpuri,
Delhi. .... Respondent/Complainant.
O R D E R
Revision filed on : 19/07/2017
Arguments heard on : 11/12/2017
Order pronounced on : 12/12/2017
ORDER
1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 27.05.2017 passed by the court of Ld. M.M. (Trial Court), vide which, the application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act filed by the petitioner/accused has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant has filed a complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against this petitioner/accused in the court of Ld. M.M. (Trial Court) and when, the matter was running at the stage of final arguments, the petitioner/accused had filed the application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act and it was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order under Revision and (CR No.126/17, Ramesh Kumar vs. Rajni Kaur) Page 1 of 6 the petitioner/accused has preferred the present revision petition and sought to set aside the impugned order under Revision.
3. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondent/complainant and on completion of the service, the respondent/complainant has appeared alongwith her Counsel. Record of Trial Court is also requisitioned and perused.
4. I have heard learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed grave error while passing the order under revision and submitted that the petitioner/accused is not disputing his signature on the cheque in question, but, as the cheque in question was not filled by the petitioner/accused, so, it was essential to determine as to who had filled the said cheque and for that purpose cheque and the admitted signature of the petitioner/accused are required to be sent again to FSL and submitted that the learned Trial Court had ignored the fact that vide order dated 24.09.2011 passed by Sh. Rajnish Bhatnagar, the-then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, it was held while allowing the revision's petition of this petitioner/accused that it was necessary to have opinion of the expert and submitted that in compliance thereof, the petitioner/accused has given his specimen signatures, but, since the forensic expert could not give his opinion, so, the petitioner/accused has filed application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence in the Ld. Trial Court on dated 04.11.2016 for sending the admitted signatures to the FSL once again, but, the same application has been dismissed by the Trial Court and submitted that this revision may be allowed and impugned order under revision may be set aside. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in case Bande Siva Shankara Sriniwasa Prasad vs. Ravi (CR No.126/17, Ramesh Kumar vs. Rajni Kaur) Page 2 of 6 Surya Prakash Babu, III (2016) CLT (FB) 212 and another judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case Sri Ishwar vs. Suresh, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 345.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant has submitted that this petitioner/accused is misusing the process of law. As earlier, he had filed similar first application in the Ld. Trial Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.04.2011 and submitted that this petitioner/accused had preferred a revision petition against the said order and the said revision was allowed by the court of Sh. Rajnish Bhatnagar, the-then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi, vide order dated 24.09.2011 and submitted that since the FSL in its report dated 26.04.2012 held that it has not been possible to express any opinion qua the writing and submitted that despite of the same, this petitioner/accused had filed another similar application in the Ld. Tial Court and the Ld. Trial Court without serving any notice of the said application to the respondent/complainant had dismissed the said application and further submitted that this petitioner/accused had preferred a revision against the said order passed by the Ld. Trial Court on dated 04.08.2014 and the Ld. Appellate Court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Rohini, was pleased to dismiss the said revision vide order dated 02.09.2014 and further submitted that thereafter again on dated 04.11.2016 the petitioner/accused had filed another application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act and sought to send the cheque with the admitted writing to the FSL. But, the Ld. Trial Court vide its impugned order under Revision dated 27.05.2017, was pleased to dismiss the said application filed by petitioner/accused and submitted that since this petitioner/accused has not disputed his signature on his cheque, on the basis of which the complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is filed in the Ld. Trial Court and further submitted that the complaint in the Ld. Trial Court was filed by the respondent/complainant on dated 14.09.2006 and the case in the Ld. Trial (CR No.126/17, Ramesh Kumar vs. Rajni Kaur) Page 3 of 6 Court is running at the stage of final arguments since the year 2011 and this petitioner/accused is unnecessarily causing the delay in the proceedings of the Ld. Trial Court and submitted that this petition is nothing, but, is a result of delaying tactics, so the same is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. Since in the case in hand, the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the basis of the cheque of Rs.1 Lakh alleged to have been issued by the petitioner/accused and during pendency of the complaint in the Ld. Trial Court the petitioner/accused had sought to send the cheque to the FSL, as he has disputed the handwriting thereon by way of filing an application in the Ld. Trial Court. But the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the said application vide order dated 27.04.2011 and on preferring of revision against the said order, the said revision was allowed by the court of Sh. Rajnish Bhatnagar, the-then Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 24.09.2011 and accordingly the cheque was sent to the FSL, but, the FSL had written in its report dated 26.04.2012 that it is not possible to express any opinion qua the writing on the said cheque and thereafter petitioner/accused had filed another similar application in the Ld. Trial Court, but, the Ld. Trial Court without serving any notice of the said application to the respondent/complainant, was pleased to dismiss the said application and this petitioner/accused had preferred a revision against the said order passed by the Ld. Trial Court on 04.08.2014 and the Ld. Appellate Court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Rohini, was pleased to dismiss the said revision vide order dated 02.09.2014. Thereafter, on dated 04.11.2016, the petitioner/accused had filed another application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act and sought to send the cheque with the admitted writing to the FSL, but, the Ld. Trial Court vide its (CR No.126/17, Ramesh Kumar vs. Rajni Kaur) Page 4 of 6 impugned order under Revision dated 27.05.2017, was pleased to dismiss the said application filed by petitioner/accused. Since, similar application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court on dated 04.08.2014 and revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the court of Sh. Praveen Kumar, Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Rohini, vide order dated 02.09.2014 and the petitioner did not choose to challenge the said order dated 02.09.2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and thus, the said order had achieved finality. Thereafter, on dated 04.11.2016, the petitioner/accused had filed another application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act and sought to send the cheque with the admitted writing to the FSL, but, the Ld. Trial Court vide its impugned order under Revision dated 27.05.2017, was pleased to dismiss the said application. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner/accused has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in case Bande Siva Shankara Sriniwasa Prasad vs. Ravi Surya Prakash Babu, III (2016) CLT (FB) 212 and another judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in case Sri Ishwar vs. Suresh, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 345. This court has gone through these judgments but in view of dissimilarities of facts and circumstances, the said judgments are of no help for the petitioner/accused. It appears to the court that the petitioner/accused has filed the said application u/s.45 of the Indian Evidence Act to cause unnecessarily delay in the proceedings in the Ld. Trial Court. Since similar application of the petitioner/accused was earlier dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court without serving any notice on the respondent/complainant and the Ld. Appellate Court had already dismissed the revision petition filed by this petitioner/accused and since the petitioner/accused did not choose to challenge the said order before the Hon'ble High Court, as discussed above, so the said order had achieved finality and since the respondent/complainant had filed the complaint in the Ld. Trial Court way back in the year 2006 and since 2011 the said complaint is running at the stage of final argument in the Ld. Trial Court and, therefore, it appears to (CR No.126/17, Ramesh Kumar vs. Rajni Kaur) Page 5 of 6 the court that the petitioner had filed the said application with the sinister motive to delay the proceedings in the Ld. Trial Court.
9. Cumulative effect of the above discussion is that this court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the impugned order under revision, which may require any interference therein. Therefore, the impugned order under revision passed by Ld. Trial Court is upheld and this revision petition is hereby dismissed, being devoid of merits.
File be consigned to record room. The record of the Trial court is ordered to be returned alongwith copy of the order.
Announced in open Court
on 12th December, 2017 (Pawan Kumar Matto)
Special Judge (NDPS),
Additional Sessions Judge, N-W,
Rohini Courts, Delhi.
(CR No.126/17, Ramesh Kumar vs. Rajni Kaur) Page 6 of 6