2019 (11) TMI 226 - HC - Indian Laws

Service of notice - interpretation of statute - Dishonor of cheque - Whether non-framing of formal notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. would vitiate entire proceedings requiring a fresh trial? HELD THAT - In terms of Section 143 NI Act, subject to the proviso, as per normal rule, the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act are summary in nature. On appearance of the accused, the Magistrate is required to explain the substance of accusation to the accused and ask him whether he would plead guilty or has any defence to make, however in terms of the mandate of the Section, it would not be necessary to frame a formal notice. Looking at the issue from another angle as to whether any failure of justice has occurred on account of non framing of formal Notice under Section 251 CrPC by the trial court on 20.12.2016. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to Section 464 CrPC which provides that no finding, sentence or order by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charges, unless, in the opinion of the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has been occasioned thereby . Thus, as per mandate of the section 251 CrPC, no formal notice is required to be framed so long as the substance of the accusation is stated and the accused is asked whether he pleads guilty or intent to lead any defence evidence. It is apparent that the petitioner has been found guilty of causing delay in the trial for one reason or the other. The present case pertains to a complaint of the year 2016. It appears that earlier, the petitioner had deliberately raised a piecemeal challenge to the order dated 20.12.2016 with respect to closure of petitioner s right to cross-examine the complainant and now, the very same order is challenged for non-framing of a formal notice under Section 251 CrPC by the trial court - Looking at the overall conduct of the petitioner in delaying the proceedings for one reason or the other, the present petitions are dismissed with costs of ₹ 10,000/- to be paid to the complainant.

Summary

Issues:
Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of order dated 06.05.2019 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi arising out of CC No.12358 of 2016 and CC No. 12360 of 2016 between the same parties.

Analysis:
The petitions raise the question of whether non-framing of formal notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. would vitiate the entire proceedings requiring a fresh trial. The petitioner argued that the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The chronological events noted by the revisional court indicate the progression of the case, including the filing of the complaint, summoning of the accused, and subsequent court actions. The petitioner claimed that the trial court's failure to frame a formal notice on specific dates vitiated the trial proceedings. The petitioner approached the Sessions court seeking to set aside the trial court's orders and proceed with a fresh trial after framing notice under Section 251 CrPC.

The Addl. Sessions Judge dismissed both revision petitions, stating that it was not necessary to frame a formal notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. The judgment delves into the legal provisions, emphasizing the summary nature of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It highlights the importance of explaining the substance of the accusation to the accused and asking for a plea, without mandating a formal notice under Section 251 CrPC. The judgment refers to Section 464 CrPC, stating that an error in framing charges does not invalidate a court's decision unless it leads to a failure of justice.

Citing legal precedents, the judgment discusses the necessity of proving prejudice caused by errors in framing charges to warrant interference. The court notes that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to present their case and that the delay tactics were evident. The petitioner's conduct in delaying proceedings, challenging orders piecemeal, and failing to lead defense evidence were highlighted. The judgment dismisses the petitions, imposing costs on the petitioner and directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

Overall, the judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness, adherence to legal provisions, and avoiding delay tactics in legal proceedings. It underscores the need to establish real prejudice caused by procedural errors to warrant interference in the trial process.