Remanded

Naveen Malhotra v. State & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2017TR.P.(CRL.)/73/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

a single-judge order consolidating trials where a consistent defence regarding force-obtained cheques exists. The Court transferred the criminal investigation proceedings (FIR 485/2014) to the same court handling the Section 138 NI Act complaint cases to ensure coherent findings.

What did the court decide?

The trial under FIR 485/2014 was transferred to the court where the nine complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are pending.

Naveen Malhotra Vs State & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:14.10.2024 17:07:22 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

registered consequent upon passing of orders u/s 156(3). Cr P.C by the learned Magistrate, cognisance stands taken and respondent no.2 has been summoned. The petitioner also seeks that first the trial in FIR 485/2014 be, completed and then the trial in CC No.51428/2016, CC No. 51485/2016 and CC No. 51429/2016 under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act be proceeded with. The petitioner seeks stay of the trial in the aforesaid eomplaint cases in the meantime.

¶3

The submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the consistent stand of the petitioner throughout has been that respondent no.2 had obtained 25 cheques in all including the three cheques in respect of which the aforesaid complaint has been preferred by respondent no.2 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, by use of threat and coercion. The defence of the petitioner/ accused is that there was ho legally recoverable debt or other liability from the petitioner by the respondent/ complainant. In this regard, reference has been made to the following documents/facts:

¶4

i) the communication sent by the petitioner to its bank stopping payment in respect of the 25 eheques issued to respondent no.2 on the ground that they had been obtained by use of force and' threat; .

¶5

ii) the stand taken by the petitioner/ accused in its reply issued in response to the statutory notice issued by respondent no.2 u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act;

¶6

iii) the defence disclosed by the petitioner in his statement under Section 251' Cr PC before the learned Magistrate upon the petitioner being summoned in the proeeedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act; , ,

¶7

iv) the complaint preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr PC which forms the basis of the FIR No.485/2014 registered . against respondent ho.2.

¶8

It is, therefore, argued that in case the trial in the complaint cases preferred by respondent no.2 under.Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the police case registered vide FIR No.485/2014 is not consolidated, the same may lead to conflicting and divergent findings. It is submitted that the defence of the petitioner/ accused in the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act forms the basis of the complaint in relation to the aforesaid FIR.

¶9

Counsel for respondent No,2, though does not object to the consolidation of the trial in the police case and the complaint preferred by respondent No.2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, submits that there, are 9 complaint eases - 8 preferred by respondent no.2 and one by wife, in respect of the 25 cheques. The stage in those cases is the cross examination of the complainant witnesses. Therefore, it is submitted that instead of transferring the said complaint eases, the police case vide FfR 485/2014 may be transferred to the same court where the complaint cases are pending.

¶10

In view of the aforesaid, the trial in the police case vide FIR 4,85/2014 registered at PS Safdarjung Enclave stands transferred to the court before whom the 9 complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act preferred by respondent no.2 and his wife are pending. It shall be open to the learned MM concerned to decide the order in which the eases should be proceeded. .

¶11

¶12

The petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶13

VIPIN SANGHI, J JANUARY 09, 2017

¶14

Naveen Malhotra v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Malhotra v. State & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C L Bhola & Anr. Vs C B I

Pradeep Kumar Vs Prithvi Singh Dedha

Kamal Vs Rajesh Jain

Ashwani Kumar Vs State & Ors.

Gopal Singh Vs State & Ors.

Dilip Kaushik Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Atul Bhuchar Vs State & Anr.

Ashish Singh Vs Pushpa Singh

Arjun Singh Rathor Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Daljit Singh Sodhi Vs State & Anr.

Daljeet Singh Wadali & Anr. Vs State & Anr.

Bishamber Dayal Chauhan Vs Lt Governor, Delhi & Ors.

Parvinder Vs State (Nct Delhi) & Anr.

Delhi Administration Vs Raj Kumar