9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... criminal trial and consequences. It is seen in many cases that the petitioners with malafide intention and to prolong the litigation raise false and frivolous pleas and in some cases, the petitioners do have genuine defence, but instead of following due procedure of law, as provided under the N.I. Act and the Cr.PC, and further, by misreading of the provisions, such parties consider that the only option available to them is to approach the High Court and on this, the High Court is made to step into the shoes of the Metropolitan Magistrate and examine their defence first and exonerate them. The High Court cannot usurp the powers of the Metropolitan Magistrate and entertain a plea of accused, as to why he should not be tried under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PP for the State. Mr. Rana Ranjit Singh, Mr. Ravish Singh, Ms. Akanksha Singh, Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh and Mr. Ashish Mohan, Advocates for R-2. RAJNISH BHATNAGAR J. (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 2918/2023 in CRL.M.C. 765/2023 CRL.M.A. 2920/2023 in CRL.M.C. 766/2023 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. CRL.M.C. 765/2023 CRL.M.A. 2917/2023 (stay) CRL.M.C. 766/2023 CRL.M.A. 2919/2023 (stay) 1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summoning order dated 15.02.2022 passed by Ld. ACMM, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 685/2019 registered under Section 138 N.I. Act and for quashing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to impugned complaint not disclosing the nature of business transactions and thus, he submits that it cannot be assumed that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. Lastly, he submits that this petition is filed bonafide, in the interest of justice and without any intentional delay. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the following judgments: * Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate and Other [(1998) 5 SCC 749] * S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla and Another [(2005) 8 SCC 89] * Omniplast Private Limited Vs. Standard Chartered Bank and Others [(2015) 15 SCC 693] * ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, there is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law laid down in the said judgments, but with due regard, the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case as from perusal of the summoning orders dated 15.02.2022 and 06.05.2019, it is apparent that while passing these orders, the learned Magistrate has perused the complaints as well as affidavit in evidence filed in support of the complaints and other documents filed on record, and therefore, it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any error while summoning the petitioner in the instant cases. 8. Now coming to the legal position in this case and taking into consideration the various provisions of Cr.PC which have been discussed in various judgmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of the accused as to why he is not to face trial under section 138 N.I. Act, he alone has to take the plea of defence and the burden cannot be shifted to complainant. There is no presumption that even if an accused fails to bring out his defence, he is still to be considered innocent. If an accused has a defence against dishonour of the cheque in question, it is he alone who knows the defence and responsibility of spelling out this defence to the Court and then proving this defence is on the accused. Once the complainant has brought forward his case by giving his affidavit about the issuance of cheque, dishonour of cheque, issuance of demand notice etc., he can be cross-examined only if the accused makes an application to the Court as to, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese cases have been issued, it is now the obligation of the accused to take notice under Section 251 of Cr. PC., if not already taken, and enter his/her plea of defence before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate s Court and make an application, if they want to recall any witness. If they intend to prove their defence without recalling any complainant witness or any other witnesses, they should do so before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. 12. As far as the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that this petition is filed bonafide, in the interest of justice and without intentional delay, no doubt, delay is not always fatal to the case, provided it has been satisfactorily explained, however, in the instant case, the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
