Allowed

M/S Aloke Fibre Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr Raghav Bansal & Ors.

Delhi HC9 Jan 2024CRL.M.C./181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing orders that failed to summon Respondent no.3 and dismissed the complainant's application to record an amended memo of parties. The Court waived costs and directed the quasi-judicial court to consider the amended memo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 10.07.2023 and 25.11.2023 set aside. Costs of Rs. 10,000 waived. Directed to take amended memo of parties on record.

M/S Aloke Fibre Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr Raghav Bansal & Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~61

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CRL.M.C. 181/2024

¶4

M/S ALOKE FIBRE TECH PVT LTD ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Balvinder S. Mouji, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

MR RAGHAV BANSAL & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: None.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

¶8

O R D E R % 09.01.2024 CRL.M.A. 737/2024 (exemption)

¶9

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶10

Application stands disposed of.

¶11

CRL.M.C. 181/2024

¶12

The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following relief:

¶13

a. “Set aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Learned Court of Shri Sourabh Goyal, Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, Delhi in the case bearing CC NI ACT/5029/2023, titled as "M/s Aloke Fibre Tech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Raghav Bansal and Anr." to the extent summons of complaint have not been issued against Respondent no.3 herein;

¶14

b. Set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2023 passed by the Learned Court of Shri Anshul Singhal Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, Delhi, in the case bearing CC NI ACT/5029/2023, titled as "M/s Aloke Fibre Tech Pvt. Ltd. Versus Raghav Bansal and Anr." to the extent it has dismissed the application moved by Petitioner with exorbitant costs of Rs.

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 06/06/2024 at 15:07:29

¶17

10,000/- and had refused to issue summons against respondent no.3/accused no.3;

¶18

c. Costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed vide order dated 25.11.2023 may kindly be waived;

¶19

d. Summons of complaint may be directed to be issued against Respondent no.3 as well…..”

¶20

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that vide the impugned order dated 10.07.2023, the learned Trial Court was pleased to issues summons against respondent no. 1 and 2 only but not against respondent no. 3, ignoring the amended memo of parties filed by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court and thereafter vide order dated 25.11.2023 the learned Trial Court had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner wherein it was prayed that a physical copy of the amended memo of parties be taken on record and to issue summons to respondent no.3.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also invites this Court‟s attention to the following paragraphs of the impugned order dated 25.11.2023, which are reproduced as under:

¶22

“ The amended memo of parties was to be filed within 7 days from 09.11.2023 however, same has not been so filed and no application for condonation of delay has been filed on behalf of the complainant. However, still taking the lenient view, physical copy of amended memo of pai1ies is hereby taken on record.

¶23

It is to be noted that this court is neither a Revisionist Court nor a Appellate Court and does not have the power to review and recall its orders. If the complainant is aggrieved from order 10.07.2023 of this court then the appropriate course of action would have been to file an appeal or revision as per law however, complainant has chosen to file the present application.”

¶24

This Court has heard arguments on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the material placed on record.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 06/06/2024 at 15:07:29

¶27

This Court, having considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case, also takes note of the fact that that Court of the learned Magistrate is a digital court, and therefore there might have arisen a confusion regarding taking on record the amended memo of parties which even the petitioner could not have known, as to whether the same had been taken on record or not, and also the fact that he is the complainant before the learned Trial Court.

¶28

In view of the above, the order dated 25.11.2023 passed by the court of Metropolitan Magistrate (South), Saket Courts, Delhi, in case bearing no. CC NI Act/5029/2023 titled as “M/S Aloke Fibre Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Sh. Raghav Bansal & Anr.” is set aside. The costs of Rs. 10,000/- imposed vide order dated 25.11.2023, on the petitioner is waived off. It is directed that petitioner‟s amended memo of parties be taken on record by the learned Trial Court.

¶29

No further relief is prayed for.

¶30

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶31

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

¶32

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J

¶33

JANUARY 9, 2024/ at

¶34

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 06/06/2024 at 15:07:29

M/S Aloke Fibre Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr Raghav Bansal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aloke Fibre Tech Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr Raghav Bansal & 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

Nitesh Vs State

Ram Nath Vs State NCT of Delhi

Harphool Singh & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ram Pyari Vs State & Ors.

Sh Rahul Saini and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Sooraj Vs State (Gnct Delhi)