Final Order 6

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.1 of 10
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI JAIN, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLCT01-014884-2024
Criminal Revision No. 392/2024
Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr.
IN THE MATTER OF :
Shri Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma,
Aged about 50 Years,
S/o Sh. Sant Ram Sharma,
R/o RZ-45C/1, Gali No. 5/18,
Main Sagarpur, South-West,
Delhi-110046.
….Revisionist/Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The State (GNCT of Delhi)
New Delhi.
….Respondent No.1
2. Tarun Vaid
S/o Shri. D.N Vaid,
R/o H. No. 318, Sector-12,
Panchkula, Haryana.
….Respondent No.2
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.11.2024
ORDER RESERVED ON : 03.12.2024
DATE OF ORDER : 03.12.2024
-- 1 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.2 of 10
O R D E R
1. Vide this order, this Court shall decide revision petition
under Section 440 BNSS, 2023 against the summoning order
dated 20.08.2024 passed by Sh. Rupinder Singh Dhiman, Ld.
JMIC, Delhi in CC No. 10383/2019 case titled as Tarun Vaid Vs.
Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma moved on behalf of
revisionist.
2. It is averred that complainant / respondent no.2 had filed
complaint under Section 138 of NI Act 15 in number against the
revisionist for recovery of alleged cheque amount.
3. It is further submitted that the cheques issued by the
revisionist got returned dishonoured after presenting for
encashment due to the reason “Fund Insufficient" and the
complainant / respondent no.2 got issued a legal demand notice
for recovery of the alleged cheque amount upon the
revisionist/accused and the accused, despite the expiry of
stipulated period failed to make the payment of the cheques in
question.
4. It is further submitted that the revisionist appeared on each
and every date before the Court and explained his difficulty to
produce surety in above said matter as the case filed by the
respondent no.2 are 15 in numbers and requested the Court to
accept personal bond on behalf of the revisionist but the Court
ordered to produce surety in all matters.
-- 2 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.3 of 10
5. It is further submitted that the respondent no.2 is a
practicing advocate in Supreme Court of India and was appointed
as legal retainer for the company of the revisionist and has taken
38 blank cheques on the pretexts of filing court fees but because
of the malafide intention, the respondent no.2 has filed 15 cases
against the revisionist under Section 138 N. I. Act and same are
pending before the the Court of Sh. Rupinder Singh Dhiman, Ld.
JMIC, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
6. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the fact that the revisionist is appearing on each and
every date of hearing without default and revisionist is staying in
Delhi since last about 40 years and there is no chance of fleeing
away from justice.
7. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court has failed to
appreciate the fact that the respondent no.2 has misused the
cheque given to him by the revisionist to file the appropriate
court fee and the impugned order passed by the Ld. M.M. is
contrary to Law and the facts established by the revisionist and
the decision is wholly based on the presumptions and
assumptions made by the Ld. M.M. in favour of the
complainant/respondent and against the revisionist and the
decision of the Ld. Trial Court is based on surmises, illegalities
and lack of the application of recent judicial pronouncements.
8. The revisionist has never been involved in any criminal
case and has clean antecedents and even not filed similar revision
before any Court of Law.
-- 3 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.4 of 10
9. It is prayed that order dated 20.08.2024 be set aside and
revision petition be allowed and personal bond of revisionist be
accepted.
10. Notice of revision was issued to respondent no.2 on which
he entered his appearance and respondent no.1 is State.
11. Respondent no.1 chose not to file reply and
straightforward addressed arguments.
12. In reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, it is submitted
that present revision is not maintainable in the present form as
the revisionist/ accused person was ordered to furnish the bail
bond/surety bond on 20.03.2021 by the Hon'ble court of Ms.
Kratika Chaturvedi, Ld. MM, NI Act-04, Central District THC
and said order has not been challenged till date.
13. It is further averred that accused / revisionist never gave
any application before the trial court to accept the personal bond.
Moreover, the accused/revisionist always requested the court that
he will give the surety bond on the next date of hearing.
14. It is further submitted that it is tendency of the accused
/revisionist to flee from justice on acceptance of personal bond as
in the past in 3 cheque bounce cases in Jhajjar, 3 times the
accused /revisionist has flew away after getting the bail from the
Jhajjar Court.
15. It is further submitted that the trial court has passed the
order as per the law lay down in the NI Act. Moreover accused /
-- 4 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.5 of 10
revisionist has not given any application before the trial court for
release on personal bond.
16. It is further submitted that this revision petition is not
within the period of limitation as the revisionist/accused person
has not challenged the first order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the
trial court vide which he was directed to furnish surety bond for
the first time.
17. It is prayed that the revision petition filed by the accused /
revisionist be dismissed with cost as it is full of lies and accused /
revisionist will flew away abroad and will never come back to
the India, if released on personal bond.
18. I have heard the arguments and perused the record
carefully.
19. Revisionist has filed the present revision petition against
impugned order dated 20.08.2024 passed by Ld. Trial court,
whereby last opportunity was granted to revisionist for furnishing
surety bond.
20. It is submitted by ld. Counsel for the revisionist that
revisionist appeared on each and every date before the Ld. Trial
Court and explained his difficulties to produce surety in the
present matter as there are 15 such matters and requested the trial
court to accept the personal bond but the trial court ordered to
produce surety in all the matters.
21. Before proceedings further, it is necessary to go through
-- 5 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.6 of 10
the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 passed by Ld. Trial court
which is reproduced as under:-
“ 96
Ct. Cases/10383/2019
DLCT020238682019
TARUN VAID Vs.
AJESH SHARMA@AJESH KUMAR SHARMA
20.08.2024
Matters are being taken up physically in terms of
order no. 67/RG/DHC/2022 dated 11.02.2022. VC
Link is kept open for appearance in terms of order
no. 01/RG/DHC/2023 dated 05.06.2023.
Present : Ms. Sonali Singh, Ld. Counsel for the
complainant.
Accused with ld. Counsel Sh. Ravinder
Singh.
These are 15 connected matters.
Time sought to furnish the surety bond.
Request allowed.
Last opportunity is given.
Further, matter is fixed for CE. However,
the complainant is not present.
It is stated that the complainant is also a
counsel/ advocate and had to rush to Supreme Court
in another matter.
Perusal of file shows that previously also,
complainant had made similar submission on
19.12.2023.
Further, on LDOH also, the complainant
was not available.
Date was given as per the request and
convenience of the parties.
Hence, last opportunity is given to the
complainant to appear for the purpose of CE.
List the matter for CE on 18.01.2025 at
02:30 pm.
(Rupinder Singh Dhiman)
JMIC, NI Act-06, Central District, THC/20.08.2024”
-- 6 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.7 of 10
22. Perusal of TCR and impugned order reveals that
revisionist has nowhere taken plea / requested the Ld. Trial Court
to allow him to furnish personal bond. Furthermore, perusal of
TCR reveals that on each and every date, time was sought for
furnishing bail bond on behalf of revisionist and trial Court
granted the time accordingly. To be more specific, as per TCR
revisionist / accused appeared in the Ld. Trial Court on
20.03.2021, 09.11.2021, 14.02.2022, 12.04.2022, 12.07.2022,
23.04.2024 and 20.08.2024 and almost on every date sought time
to furnish bail bond. None of the ordersheet reflect that
revisionist ever made any request before the Ld. Trial Court
regarding acceptance of personal bond and the same has been
declined. Accordingly, submission/averments of the revisionist
are found to be incorrect on record. Furthermore, admittedly no
application seeking release of accused / revisionist on personal
bond has been moved before Ld. Trial Court, which has been
declined by the said Court. Trial Court Record does not reflect
any request being made on behalf of revisionist at any point of
time for furnishing personal bond and the same has been declined
by the Ld. Trial Court. Accordingly, no material brought on
record to challenge correctness, legality and propriety of the
impugned order dated 20.08.2024 which is sine qua non for
invoking revisional jurisdiction.
23. Coming now to the case law, while discussing the power
of the revisionist court, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., AIR 2002 SC 107, it
-- 7 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.8 of 10
has been held by the Supreme Court as under:
“3. ...The revision power under the Code of Criminal
Procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual
manner. While exercising such powers the High
Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in
the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are
required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised
only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against
the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the
framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First
Information Report even if they are taken at the face
value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute
the offence for which the accused has been charged.
This Court in Kanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of
West Bengal, 2000 CriLJ 746 has held that there is no
legal requirement for the trial court to write a
reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges.”
24. Also, the present court have to keep in mind that revisional
jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases
where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest
error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant
miscarriage of justice. In Taron Mohan v. State & Anr, 2021
SCC OnLine Del 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has observed as
under:-
“
9. The scope of interference in a revision petition is
extremely narrow. It is well settled that Section 397
CrPC gives the High Courts or the Sessions Courts
jurisdiction to consider the correctness, legality or
propriety of any finding inter se an order and as to the
regularity of the proceedings of any inferior court. It is
also well settled that while considering the legality,
propriety or correctness of a finding or a conclusion,
normally the revising court does not dwell at length
upon the facts and evidence of the case. A court in
-- 8 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.9 of 10
revision considers the material only to satisfy itself
about the legality and propriety of the findings,
sentence and order and refrains from substituting its
own conclusion on an elaborate consideration of
evidence."
25. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay Singh Ramrao
Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC
123 wherein it has been observed as under :
“
14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is
perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly
unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any
relevant material or there is palpable misreading of
records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting
aside the order, merely because another view is
possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as
an appellate court. The whole purpose of the
revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the
court to do justice in accordance with the principles of
criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the
court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be
equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of
the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is
shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly
erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the
decision is based on no material or where the material
facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial
discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the
courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of
their revisional jurisdiction."
26. Applying the aforesaid Principle of law to the facts and
circumstances of the case as well as law as discussed in
preceding paragraphs, it is crystal clear that Ld. Trial Court has
rightly passed the order dated 20.08.2024 as per law as on said
date, only time was sought on behalf of revisionist for furnishing
-- 9 of 10 --
CR No.392/2024 Ajesh Sharma @ Ajesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Anr. Page No.10 of 10
surety bond and request of the revisionist was allowed and last
opportunity was given for furnishing surety bond. There is
nothing on record reflecting that request of revisionist/accused
regarding acceptance of personal bond was ever made and
declined during proceedings before Ld. Trial Court so as to
invoke jurisdiction of revisional Court. It cannot be said at this
stage that conclusion arrived by the Ld. Trial Court is
unreasonable and unjustified, calling for interference by the
present Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. I do not find
any infirmity or flaw in the impugned order passed by Ld. Trial
Court. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
However, revisionist is at liberty to move appropriate application
for furnishing personal bond in the Ld. Trial Court, which the
concerned Court can decide on merit as per law.
27. Accordingly, Revision Petition is disposed off as
dismissed.
28. Nothing said herein shall tantamount to have effect on the
merits of the case. Trial Court record be sent back alongwith the
copy of this order.
29. Revision file be consigned to Record Room after due
compliance.
Copy of order be given dasti to the revisionist.
Announced in the Open Court (Shilpi Jain)
on 03rd day of December, 2024 Additional Sessions Judge-02,
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
-- 10 of 10 --