9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s seeking leave to appeal are also erroneous inasmuch as, the petitioner has captioned those as applications under Section 378 (3) of the CrPC. It is well settled that the Courts would examine the substance in preference over form and therefore, this Court is unable to accept that the present petitions should be dismissed only for the reasons that they are defective in their form. The petitioner ought to have styled the present petitions as application for leave to appeal. However, this Court does not consider it apposite to dismiss the present petitions on this ground. This Court is also of the view that the petitioner has adequately explained the delay in filing the present petition - This Court is of the view that the said explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spondent no.2 had mortgaged her property bearing Flat No. 54, Block C, Kailash Apartment, Lala Lajpat Rai Road, New Delhi -110048 by depositing the title deed of the said property with the petitioner company. Respondent no.2, in discharge of her liability towards the abovementioned loan, issued three cheques in favour of the petitioner company - cheque bearing no. 048267 for a sum of ₹11,50,000/- dated 31.05.2013; cheque bearing no. 500376 for a sum of ₹4,48,376/- dated 13.06.2014; and cheque bearing no. cheque bearing no. 048265 for a sum of ₹55,00,000/-. 3. On 30.07.2013, the abovementioned cheques were presented through HDFC Bank Ltd. and were dishonoured. The cheques were returned by a memo dated 30.07.2013, indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2015 and hence, the complaints ought not to be dismissed. 8. The petitioner company filed a criminal revision petition bearing No. 21/2015 before the Sessions Judge, Saket Court, New Delhi challenging the common order dated 21.05.2015 (the order impugned herein), whereby all three complaints by the petitioner company had been dismissed for non-appearance. 9. On 26.09.2016, the District and Sessions Judge noted that since the accused had been summoned by the Ld. MM and the dismissal of the appeal amounts to an acquittal in a complaint case, the maintainability of the present revision was doubtful. However, an opportunity was given to the counsel to make submissions on the said question on the next date of hearing. On 24.10.2016, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instead of 05.02.2015 and therefore, the petitioner remained unrepresented before the Trial Court on two occasions, that is, on 05.02.2015 and 21.02.2015. 13. The petitioner had filed the revision petition against an order dated 21.02.2015 and the said revision petition remained pending before the learned ASJ for a considerable period of time till it was suggested that the said petition may not be maintainable as an order of discharge was akin to an order of acquittal. Consequently, the said petition was withdrawn on 21.04.2016 with liberty to file an appeal before an appropriate court. 14. The present petitions were filed on 23.01.2017. The same were also accompanied by applications under Section 378(3) of the CrPC read with Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In Yudhvir Singh v. Nagmani Financial Services (P) Ltd.: 2003 (108) DLT 142 , the Coordinate Bench of this Court had considered the case where the complaint was dismissed as a consequence of the failure on the part of complainant to appear. The Court had observed that the dismissal of the complaint would be under Section 256, CrPC, therefore, only a petition for Special Leave to Appeal under Section 378(4), CrPC would be maintainable. 17. In Subhash Chand v. State (Delhi Administration): (2013) 2 SCC 17, the Supreme Court had concluded that that a complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court. The expression an order of acquittal of any kin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gently pursuing the complaints since their institution. However, the complainant remained unrepresented on two occasions 05.02.2015 and 21.02.2015. This has been adequately explained by the petitioner: the petitioner s counsel has incorrectly noted down the next date of hearing as 05.03.2015 instead of 05.02.2015. 22. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 had submitted that the petitioner had filed the process fee on 17.12.2014 and in the said process, had correctly mentioned the next date of hearing as 05.02.2015 and therefore, the explanation that the petitioner s counsel had noted down an incorrect date in its diary ought not to be accepted. Whilst it is correct that the petitioner s counsel had filed the process fee men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
