The Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge which rejected arguments regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 NI Act and upheld the interim compensation order.
The petition was dismissed and pending applications were disposed-of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~21
JITENDER SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI O R D E R % 02.07.2024
By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), the petitioner impugns order dated 18.04.2024 made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (RC), Dwarka Courts South-West District, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Case No. 62/2023, arising from order dated 05.12.2022 made by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. 14661/2020 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘N.I. Act’).
Page 1 of 4
CRL.M.C. 4929/2024
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 4929/2024 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 23/07/2024 at 12:20:02
“5. It has been argued by the Counsel for the revisionist that the learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the arguments of the revisionist and had passed the order in an arbitrary order. It is argued that learned Trial Court has not taken into consideration the defence raised by the revisionist that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability against the revisionist. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has based its decision on the ground (sic) admitted signatures of the revisionist on the cheque and the letter of consent. It is further contended that mere admission of signatures cannot be considered as an admission of liability against the revisionist. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has not taken into account the fact that the respondent has not produced any agreement pertaining to running of a Chit Fund Committee by the respondent or that the revisionist was a subscriber to the same.
“6. Respondent has argued that the order passed by the learned trial court is well reasoned and has already considered the submissions raised by the revisionist and requires no further
Page 2 of 4
CRL.M.C. 4929/2024
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 4929/2024 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 23/07/2024 at 12:20:02
intervention. It is submitted in the reply filed by the counsel for the respondent that the revisionist did not appear before the learned trial court despite receipt of summons. Bailable warrants had to be issued against him to secure his presence. It is submitted that due to delay caused by the revisionist notice was framed after nearly 1.5 years from the receipt of summons. It is further contended that once issuance of a cheque and signatures are admitted, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favor of the holder of the cheque arises. It is further submitted that the admitted signature of the revisionist on the cheque and on the letter of consent give rise to the presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favor of the holder of cheque. It is further contended by the counsel for the respondent in the reply that the revisionist would still be liable if there is an outstanding liability of the revisionist towards the respondent at the time of presentation of the cheque. It is submitted that the letter of consent specifically mentions that revisionist took Rs.6,00,000/from the respondent and he would return the same in lieu of that he was issuing cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of the respondent and the said of consent bears the signatures of three witnesses.”
(emphasis supplied)
“12. In the instant matter, trial court record has been perused. The reply filed by the revisionist before the trial Court has also been seen. The contentions raised therein find mention in the order so passed. It is not for a revision court to replace the discretion of the learned Trial Court if rightly exercised, with that of its own.
“13. In view of the above findings, there is no infirmity, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the
Page 3 of 4
CRL.M.C. 4929/2024
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 4929/2024 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 23/07/2024 at 12:20:02
learned Trial Court which calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is without merits and is hereby dismissed.”
7. Upon a conspectus of the foregoing, this court finds no basis or reason to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.PC to interfere with impugned order dated 18.04.2024 made by the learned ASJ.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J
JULY 2, 2024 V.Rawat
Page 4 of 4
This is a digitally signed order. CRL.M.C. 4929/2024 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 23/07/2024 at 12:20:02
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court must exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC to interfere with the Additional Sessions Judge’s order dismissing the revision petition.
Whether the dismissal of the revision petition challenging the interim compensation order under Section 138 NI Act is maintainable in the absence of patent defects.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Jitender Kumar Tomar
Jitender Singh
Anup Jairam Bhambhani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
