Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Crl. Rev. No.554/2023
Manoj Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs State & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JANGALA
ASJ-05, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW
DELHI
CNR no.DLND01-006925-2023
Crl. Rev. No. 554/2023
Manoj Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs State & Anr.
1. Manoj Kumar Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Chittar Singh
R/o B-30, Sector Gamma, Greater Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-201310
2. Chittar Singh
R/o B-30, Sector Gamma, Greater Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-201310
3. Kamal Aggarwal
S/o Madan Lal Aggarwal
Director of Airwill Smart City Pvt. Ltd.
R/o S-563, 1st Floor, School Block
Shankar Pur, Delhi-110092
Also available at
House No. 31B, Gali No. 5, Krishna Nagar
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
4. Ms Rachna
D/o Sh. Krishan Lal
R/o House No. 1082 Main Bazar,
Paharganj, Swami Ram Tirth Nagar,
Delhi-110055 ..........Revisionists
VERSUS
1. The State of NCT of Delhi,
Through S. P. P.
2. Sh. Mohit Khurana
Prop. Of M/s Hero Motors,
R/o B-131A, Sector-16, Noida, UP
Though its General Power of Attorney
1
-- 1 of 4 --
Crl. Rev. No.554/2023
Manoj Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs State & Anr.
Sh. Rahul Gulati ......Respondents
Date of institution : 08.08.2023
Date of arguments: 19.08.2023
Date of order: 22.08.2023
Appearances: Sh. Chandan Bhatia, Ld. Counsel for revisionists.
Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for the
state/respondent no.1.
None for respondent no. 2.
1. This is a revision petition under section 397 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Cr.PC) filed by
revisionist/accused persons praying for setting aside the impugned order
dated 12.01.2022 and 03.07.2023 passed by Sh. Pankaj Rai, Ld.
Metropolitan Magistrate, N.I. Act-05, New Delhi District, Patiala House
Court, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. MM).
2. Arguments on present revision petition advanced by Sh.
Chandan Bhatia, Ld. Counsel for revisionists and Sh. Mukul Kumar, Ld.
Additional PP for the state are heard. Trial Court Record perused.
3. Brief facts: The respondent no. 2/complainant filed a
criminal complaint under section 200 Cr.PC for commission of offence
under section 138 NI Act against revisionists.. The revisionist were
summoned as an accused by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated
22.05.2018. The notice under section 251 Cr.PC is not yet served upon the
accused persons as appearance of all accused persons could not be secured.
During pendency of the proceedings, an application under section 258
Cr.PC for stopping of proceedings and discharge of accused no. 2 to 4 has
been filed. The application moved by accused persons had been dismissed
by Ld. Trial Court.
2
-- 2 of 4 --
Crl. Rev. No.554/2023
Manoj Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs State & Anr.
4. The revisionist/accused persons being aggrieved by the order
of dismissal of application under section 258 Cr.PC has filed the present
revision petition.
5. The perusal of impugned order passed by Ld. Trial Court
would reveals that Ld. Trial Court has relied upon one judgment passed by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Court on its own Motion Vs State,
Crl. Ref. No. 4/2019 decided on 20.04.2022 wherein it is held as under:
“ The Court of a Magistrate does not have the power
to discharge the accused upon his appearance in
Court in a summons trial case based upon a
complaint in general, and particularly in a case
under section 138 of the N. I. Act, once cognizance
has already been taken and process issued under
Section 204 Cr.PC”.
6. The Ld. Trial Court on the basis of judgment (Supra) of
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has held that it does not have any power to
stop the proceedings under section 258 Cr.PC as the same is applicable
only to a summons case instituted otherwise than upon a complaint and
since this is a summons case instituted on a complaint, hence the court has
no jurisdiction for stopping the proceedings against accused no. 2 to 4
under section 258 Cr.PC.
7. The perusal of material on record would reveals that the
observation made by Ld. Trial Court are in consonance with the settled law.
The Ld. Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in case titled as Court on its own Motion Vs State.
Ld. Trial Court has rightly declined to discharge of accused no. 2 to 4 in
complaint case under section 138 NI Act and to stop the proceedings
against said accused persons under section 258 Cr.PC as the said provision
is not applicable to the summons case instituted on a complaint. Therefore,
there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by Ld. Trial Court.
3
-- 3 of 4 --
Crl. Rev. No.554/2023
Manoj Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs State & Anr.
8. The revisionist/accused persons have also challenged the
summoning order dated 12.01.2022 passed by Ld. Trial Court. Article 131
of the Limitation Act lays down the limitation period of 90 days for filing
the revision petition. It is an admitted case that the revision petition is not
filed within the limitation period from the date of impugned order. The
revisionists/accused persons have not filed an application for condonation
of delay in filing the present revision petition. The revisionist/accused
persons have not disclosed any ground in the entire revision petition
warranting condonation of delay in filing the revision petition. Hence the
revision petition challanging the impugned order dated 12.01.2022 is also
not maintainable on the ground of limitation.
9. In view of the above discussion, the revision petition filed by
revisionists against State challenging the impugned order dated 12.01.2022
and 03.07.2023 passed by Sh.Pankaj Rai, Ld. MM (NI Act), New Delhi
District, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi is dismissed.
10. Trial court record be sent back to court concerned along with
attested true copy of this order.
11. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(Devender Kumar Jangala)
ASJ-05/PHC/NDD/ND
22.08.2023
4
-- 4 of 4 --