Final Order 3

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Cr Rev 480/2024
Su Tara Hardware Solutions & Anr.
Vs.
Rattan India Finance Pvt. Ltd.
20.09.2024
Present: Sh. Raj Vardhan Upadhyay, Ld. Counsel for both the
petitioners along with petitioner no.2 in person.
Sh. Amit Sagar, Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
1. Fresh vakalatnama on behalf of respondent is filed.
Same is taken on record.
2. Arguments on the present revision petition are
heard. The revision file and TCR are carefully perused.
3. Vide present revision petition, the petitioners have
assailed the order dated 30.08.2024 of Ld. JMFC-01, NDD, PHC,
New Delhi in a criminal complaint case under Sections 138/141
NI Act instituted by the respondent against them whereby their
application dated 29.08.2024 for seeking dismissal of the said
complaint on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction was
dismissed with a cost Rs.3,000/- and their right to lead defence
evidence was closed.
4. However, on 03.09.2024, ld. Counsel for the
petitioners had given up part of the sought relief qua dismissal of
their said application whereby they had sought dismissal of
complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, now
the present revision petition survives only for seeking relief of
setting aside part of the impugned order dated 30.08.2024
whereby their DE was closed.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submits that they
Page No. 1/3
-- 1 of 3 --
were not given an effective and sufficient opportunity for leading
their evidence in defence. He submits that the matter was first
listed for defence evidence on 05.07.2024 and on the said date,
an application u/s. 315 CrPC was moved by petitioner no.2 for
seeking permission to examine himself as defence witness. It was
allowed on the same date and matter was listed for 09.08.2024
for defence evidence. However, on the said date, petitioner no.2
could not appear and lead defence evidence as he was unwell.
Consequently, the matter was defrred to 30.08.2024 for defence
evidence. In the morning of the said date, he appeared through
VC but the matter was passed over till 12 noon as counsel for the
respondent was busy in another court. However, at 12 noon, he
could not appear as his wife was unwell though his counsel had
appeared and sought another opportunity for leading defence
evidence. The said request was unreasonably declined and their
right to lead defence evidence was closed.
6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent
has contended that the Ld. Trial Court gave sufficient
opportunities to the petitioners to lead their defence evidence.
However, they deliberately failed to lead the same with the sole
ulterior motive to frustrate the rights of the respondent. He has
contended that there is no illegality in the impugned order and
therefore, it deserves to be sustained.
7. The trial court record reflects that the petitioners
got at least two effective opportunities for leading their evidence
in defence i.e. on 09.08.2024 and 30.08.2024. However, on
09.08.2024, the petitioner failed to appear and his exemption was
allowed subject to cost of Rs.1,000/-. In the said order, it was
Page No. 2/3
-- 2 of 3 --
clarified that it would be last and final opportunity for him to
lead defence evidence, failing which his right to lead DE shall be
closed. Despite unambiguous warning, the petitioner failed to
physically appear in the court in morning of next date of hearing
to examine himself as defence witness and on its pass over till 12
noon, he absented when the matter was recalled for hearing after
pass over. Thus, it is apparent that even on 30.08.2024, the
petitioner did not intend to lead defence evidence. Hence, the Ld.
Trial Court lawfully exercised its jurisdiction in closing defence
evidence after observing that the counsel for the petitioner is
unable to apprise the court about the reason of his absence. Thus,
there is no illegality or impropriety or error in the impugned
order dated 30.08.2024.
8. However, in the interest of justice, considering the
facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that
complainant/respondent can be duly compensated in terms of
money for the delay caused by the petitioners for non
examination of their witnesses, another last opportunity is
granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence subject to cost of
Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent/complainant. The revision
petition is disposed off accordingly.
9. TCR be returned along with copy of this order.
10. As prayed, a copy of this order be given
dasti.
11. Revision file be consigned to the record room after
due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor)
ASJ-06/NDD/PHC
New Delhi:20.09.2024
Page No. 3/3
-- 3 of 3 --