9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment - even two cheques issued by the petitioner pursuant to settlement, were dishonoured, thus compelling the respondent herein to file the petition for contempt bearing Cont. Cas(C) 424 of 2020, which is stated to be pending. It is well settled that though Section 311 Cr.P.C confers wide power on the Court, the same needs to be exercised only to meet the ends of justice. This power has to be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection and only for strong and valid reasons. Power under this provision shall not be exercised, if the court is of the considered view that the application has been filed as an abuse of process of law. One can also not lose sight of the intent of the legislature in providing a criminal sanction for dishonour of the cheque, that is, to ensure the credibility of transactions involving negotiable instruments. As noted above, the petitioner delayed inordinately, conclusion of the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act, thus impacting not only the faith in negotiable instruments, but also in the justice dispensation system. The petitioner even made mockery of process of negotiated settlement through mediation. Thus, the application under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents cross-examination to 30.06.2018; on 30.06.2018, his earlier counsel was out of station and therefore, could not appear. On the first date itself, the petitioner s right to cross-examine the respondent and the complainant s evidence was closed. 2.1 It is further submitted by the petitioner that thereafter, the matter was settled and the petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the respondent for payment of a settled amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Only) in four installments by selling his 4 flats at Sector 73, Village Sarfabad, Noida, UP. In the meanwhile, physical functioning of the courts was suspended due to Covid-19 pandemic. Settlement could not be given effect to due to reasons beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner tried to abide by the terms and conditions of the settlement thereafter, but could not succeed. Accordingly, on 23.12.2021, the petitioner expressed his inability to adhere to the settlement before the Ld. MM and his intent to proceed with the matter on merits. 2.2 It is also submitted that thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recalling of the complainan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h on 25.08.2019, 13.09.2019, 13.10.2019 and 13.11.2019 and another payment of Rs. 23 lacs on 23.02.2020 i.e. before the pandemic struck. However, the petitioner did not pay even a single penny. Compelled by the same, the respondent filed a contempt petition before the High Court of Delhi titled as Rajiv Chadha vs Raghuvinder Singh Cont. Case (C) no. 424/2020 wherein, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 8 Lakhs to the respondent/complainant. After making of the said payment before the High court in Contempt petition, the petitioner moved an application u/s 311 CrPC before the Ld. Trial Court on 27.03.2021. On the same day, the petitioner also filed a copy of the settlement before the Ld. MM and undertook to make the payment of 1st instalment of Rs. 23 Lakhs as agreed in the settlement or to pay at least a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- to the respondent/ complainant and sought four months time to make the payment. But, on 23.12.2021, the petitioner appeared before the court and stated that he was unable to comply with the settlement and wanted the matter to be proceeded with on merits. Ld. MM then proceeded with the case and vide impugned order dated 03.02.2022 dismissed the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that finally, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against the petitioner on 01.02.2017. At request of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 18.03.2017 for moving of appropriate application u/s 145(2) N.I. Act, directing that the same be filed prior to the next date of hearing with the advance copy to the respondent herein. As no application u/s 145(2) N.I. Act was filed, one more opportunity was given to the petitioner, subject to cost, adjourning the complaint to 18.05.2017, which was then listed for arguments on 15.09.2017. On 15.09.2017, the petitioner did not appear and the matter was adjourned for further proceedings to 10.11.2017. The petitioner did not appear even on the next date of hearing i.e. 10.11.2017 and an advocate appeared on his behalf and sought exemption. Though, no ground for exemption was mentioned in the application, on the oral request of the advocate, the exemption was allowed, subject to cost of Rs. 10,000/- and the matter was adjourned to 27.02.2018 for consideration of the petitioner s application u/s 145(2) N.I. Act and appearance. On 27.02.2018, the petitioner s application under Section 145 (2) NI Act was allowed and the matter was listed for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of settlement between the parties before the Mediation Cell, High Court of Delhi. On 27.01.2020, parties reported that the matter has been settled before the Mediation Cell, High Court of Delhi. The order also records that the petitioner handed over two cheques bearing numbers 190237 dated 16.02.2020 and 190238 dated 20.02.2020, drawn on Axis Bank to the complainant/respondent herein. In view of which, the matter was adjourned to 20.03.2020. 5.5 Thereafter, apparently, in view of onset of COVID-19 pandemic, the matter was taken up on 29.08.2020, which order reads : CC No. 519453/16 29.08.2020 As per the office order no. 26/DHC/2020 dated 30.07.2020 passed by Hon ble High Court of Delhi, all the matters except evidence matter are to be taken up through video conferencing. AT 11.00 a.m. Present : Accused in person through VC. None for the complainant. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that the matter is settled in the Hon ble Court of Delhi and he is making the payment as per the settlement and the payments has to be done within 2 years. Put up for further payment/further proceedings on 09.02.2021. (...) MM(C- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tter is at the stage of SA under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Reply has been filed on behalf of the accused to the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of the complainant. Taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to the accused for the complainant in Court today. An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the accused seeking to cross examine the complainant. Taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to the counsel for the complainant in Court today. Ld. counsel for the accused has filed copy of settlement agreement dated 13.08.2019, which was executed between the parties before the Hon ble High Court of Delhi, in Court today. Taken on record. Ld. Counsel for the complainant admits that the same is the copy of the concerned settlement as stated. Accused requests the Court for a period of four months to make payment of first instalment of Rs. 23 lacs, as per the settlement between the parties. He undertakes to pay at least an amount of Rs. 10 lacs before the NDOH to show his bonafide and willingness to comply with the settlement agreement . In the interest of justice and with the consent to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a stark case of impugnity with which the petitioner has taken the system for a ride. Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed in 2014 and more than 9 years have elapsed since then. The petitioner had been seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other. Time and again, the petitioner got the coercive process/execution of NBWs halted by stating that he was ready to amicably settle the matter. The fact that the same was only a ploy, is evident from the fact that he did not even diligently appear before the mediator. In the second round of mediation, even after arriving at settlement on 13.08.2019, despite repeated opportunities neither did the petitioner honour his own undertaking in the MOU to pay the dues nor did he comply with the undertaking given by him before the court from time to time to make the payment. As noted above, even two cheques issued by the petitioner pursuant to settlement, were dishonoured, thus compelling the respondent herein to file the petition for contempt bearing Cont. Cas(C) 424 of 2020, which is stated to be pending. Subsequently, the petitioner prayed for proceeding with the matter on merits. On 27.03.2021, the petitioner moved an application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the marathon of interlocutory applications filed. A counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility. The Code of Civil Procedure so command. Applications are not to be filed on the grounds which we have referred to hereinabove and that too in such a brazen and obtrusive manner. It is wholly reprehensible. The law does not countenance it and, if we permit ourselves to say so, the professional ethics decries such practice. It is because such acts are against the majesty of law. 11. In Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand (2013) 5 SCC 202 , (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 754 commenting on the delay caused due to dilatory tactics adopted by the parties, the Court was compelled to say: (SCC p. 215, para 28) 28. In a democratic set-up, intrinsic and embedded faith in the adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern. Delay gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It is the faith and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It provides oxygen constantly. ........... Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith ingrained and establishes the sustained stability. Access to speedy justice is regarded as a human right which is deeply rooted in the foundatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
