Allowed

Neeraj Jain v. Mool Chand Saini and Anr.

Delhi HC3 Sept 2024CRL.M.C./1561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 petition by a non-signatory brother seeking quashing of summoning order and Section 251 notice under a cheque dishonour complaint. Court found the complaint had been dropped against him and the notice was wrongly framed; set the notice aside and directed the M.M. to frame it against the correct accused.

What did the court decide?

Notice under Section 251 CrPC dated 25.01.2024 set aside; MM directed to frame notice correctly.

Neeraj Jain Vs Mool Chand Saini and Anr. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~21 & 22

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 1561/2024

¶4

NEERAJ JAIN

¶5

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Jain and Mr. S.P. Gairotra, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

MOOL CHAND SAINI AND ANR.

¶8

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Himanshi, Advocate for R-1.

¶9

¶10

CRL.M.C. 1685/2024, CRL.M.A. 6472/2024

¶11

NEERAJ JAIN

¶12

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manoj Jain and Mr. S.P. Gairotra, Advocate.

¶13

versus

¶14

MOOL CHAND SAINI AND ANR

¶15

.....Respondent

¶16

Through: Ms. Himanshi, Advocate for R-1.

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

% 03.09.2024 1. A Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Neeraj Jain for quashing of the Order dated 12.10.2021 and 25.01.2024.

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/09/2024 at 12:17:36

¶21

It is submitted in the petition that the petitioner was not a signatory to the cheque and he is only the brother of respondent No.2 Mayank Jain, who had signed the cheque. It is, therefore, submitted that no offence is made out under Section 138 N.I. Act against him and the Summoning Order as well as the Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C is liable to be quashed.

¶22

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has addressed arguments.

¶23

Submissions heard .

¶24

The perusal of the Summoning Order dated 12.10.2021 reflects that the counsel for the complainant in the opening paragraph had stated that he does not want to purse the complaint against the accused Neeraj Jain.

¶25

It is quite evident that the complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was not pursued against the petitioner against which it was dropped. Furthermore, the admission/denial of the documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C had been done by accused Mayank Jain. Apparently, the Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C which has been framed on 25.01.2024, is framed wrongly against Neeraj Jain.

¶26

There is error apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the Notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C framed vide Order dated 25.01.2024, is hereby set aside with the directions to the learned M.M to frame the Notice correctly against the correct accused person.

¶27

The petitions stands allowed and are disposed of accordingly.

¶28

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J

¶29

SEPTEMBER 3, 2024/va

¶30

Neeraj Jain v. Mool Chand Saini and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Jain v. Mool Chand Saini and Anr.

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

Basant Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Parveen Kuamr Sharma and Others Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Mr Janesh Kumar Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mohammad Nadeem Vs the State of NCT of Delhi through SHO Sarai Rohilla & Ors.

Makisuddin and Ors. Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Jiten Pujapanda Vs the State NCT of Delhi