Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(x) Rahul Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Anr., Crl. M.C. 3332/2014.

10. The revisionist had filed the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act titled as Atul Kumar Vs. Anurag Bhardwaj on the allegations that cheques bearing numbers 305668 and 305669 dated 12 th July, 2016 for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lacs) each drawn on Syndicate Bank, Mount Carmel School, Sector-22, Dwarka, New Delhi were issued by the accused/respondent to him on account of standing surety for the credit facility of Rs. 6 lacs availed by accused/respondent from Syndicate Bank.

12. The contention of Ld. Counsel for the complainant/revisionist is that complaint under Section 138 NI Act was at the stage of pre- summoning and while passing order under Section 204 Cr.P.C., Ld. MM was not to embark upon a detailed discussion of the merits/demerits of the case and was required only to pass summoning order.
13. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has relied on decisions Fiona CR No:90/17 Page 7 of 19 D.O.O. 30.03.2017 Atul Kumar Vs. Anurag Bhardwaj CR No: 90/2017 Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , Crl. Appeal No. 1231/2013, Chandra Deo Singh Vs. Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr. , 1964 SCR(1) 639, Krishan Kathuria Vs. State & Anr., Crl. M.C. 549/2012, Kumar Saumitra Vs. State & Ors., Crl. M.C. 1584/2015 and Rahul Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Anr., Crl. M.C. 3332/2014.

that the learned Magistrate is required to act blindly without assessing the broader probabilities of the statement of the petitioners/witnesses.(emphasis supplied)

18. In Rahul Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Anr., Crl. M.C. 3332/2014, Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to observe:

37. -----------

-----------

Applying the afore-noted parameters to the instant case, this Court finds that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not lacking and sufficient ground to proceed against petitioners certainly exists.

------------

------------

19. As per decision in Rahul Gandhi and Ors. Vs. Dr. Subramanian Swamy & Anr. ( Supra), as relied by the revisionist, while passing order of summoning, the court has to find that the CR No:90/17 Page 12 of 19 D.O.O. 30.03.2017 Atul Kumar Vs. Anurag Bhardwaj CR No: 90/2017 ingredients of the offences alleged are not lacking.