Interim Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 99 CC NI ACT / 9471/2024 Tinku Gupta Vs. Ashok Thapa / ()
02.09.2026
(Also through VC Proceedings via CISCO Webex)
Long date is given because this court has pendency of over 38000+
cases.
Present: Complainant in person.
SH. Avinash Kumar Singh, ld. cousnel for the accused.
Accused absenbt.
Matter is at the stage of CE.
Passover sought by counsel for the accused. Allowed till 12.00 noon.
(Snehil Sharma)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) – 01
PHC/New Delhi/02.09.2026
At 12.10 PM
Present: Sh. Shrey Walia, ld. counsel for the complainant with complainant.
Accused through VC.
Sh. Avinash Kumar Singh, ld. counsel for the accsued.
CW1 examined, cross examined and discharged.
Counsel for the complainant submits that he will lead the further CE and will file
the application alongwith list of witness within 60 days with advance copy to the opposite
counsel.
Put up for CE on 23.02.2027.
(Snehil Sharma)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) – 01
PHC/New Delhi/02.09.2026
-- 1 of 5 --
99 CC NI ACT / 9471/2024 Tinku Gupta Vs. Ashok Thapa / ()
CW1: Sh. Tinku Gupta, s/o Sh. Pradeep Gupta, r/o Plot no. 2, Kitwai Nagar West,
Delhi 110023. Mb no. 9910225428.
On SA
I tender evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.CW1/A bearing
my signatures at point A and B and I rely upon the following documents:-
1. Ex.CW1/1:- Cheque.
2. Ex.CW1/2:- Returning memo
3. Ex.CW1/3:- Legal notice.
4. Ex.CW1/4(colly.):- Postal receipts.
5.Ex.CW1/5:- Certificate u/s 65B IEA
6.Ex.CW1/6:- Reply send by accused to legal notice.
7. Mark A :- Copy of aadhar card of complainant.
XXX by Sh. Ashustosh, ld. counsel for the accused.
I never used to run chit funds. I am married and my wife’s name is
Anita Negi. About four cases have been filed against my wife u/s 138 NI Act.
Again said, there are three cases as one has been won by us.
It is correct that the case which my wife has won against that appeal
has been filed which is pending in the High Court of Delhi. My wife did not
appear in the High Court of Delhi. I do not know as to whether that High Court
of Delhi appeal has been transferred to the Karkardooma courts before the Ld.
District Judge. The legal notice Ex.CW1/3 was sent by me through my advocate,
on my instructions after having been explained facts of the case. I do not know if
I had received through that advocate the reply to that legal notice Ex.CW1/3,
since he used to handle the whole matter.
It is wrong to suggest that reply Ex.CW1/6 was duly received by me
-- 2 of 5 --
-2-
as well, since it was addressed to me also.
At this stage, witness is confronted with original postal receipts
Ex.CW1/D1 sending of the reply Ex.CW1/6 to advocate and to the complainant,
alongwith tracking report which is now Mark CW1/D2 and Mark CW1/D3, the
contents of which are disputed by the complainant.
At this stage, mode of exhibiting those documents is objected by the
cousnel for the complainant. Counsel for the accused submits that he will submit
the certificate u/s 65B IEA at the time of DE and marking and exhibits of the
document are procedural aspect of the evidence and document has to prove by
the party who has brought it. Objection overule.
At the time of sending the legal notice my counsel was Mr. Daljit
Singh, however, at his instance, I had changed the advocate, whose name was Sh.
Rakshit Singh. Since, Mr. Rakshi Singh was overburdened with cases, he also
handed over the case to his team members Mr. Abhishek Rana, though he has not
come today in the court. I used to do the case as per the instructions of the
advocate and I never gave him any instructions. Again said, I told my advocate
about my complaint.
It is correct that I was asked to sign the present complaint in respect
of the impugned cheque Ex.CW1/1, I had gone through the contents of that
complaint.
It is wrong to suggest that about sending of the reply Ex.CW1/6 is
mentioned in that complaint. I did not inform my counsel as to which documents
are to be annexed with the present complaint.
It is wrong to suggest that I used to run chit funds. It is further
wrong to suggest that I had started a scheme akin to chit funds with effect from
April 2021 to April 2023, wherein the members were supposed to pay Rs.5000/-
-- 3 of 5 --
-3-
per month. It is wrong to suggest that a chart was provided as mentioned at page
no. 2 of the Ex.Cw1/6, in terms of which the date of payment with effect from
first month’s installment of April 2021 was to be paid. It is further wrong to
suggest that depending upon the urgency for the money, the monetray benefits
were to be given by me which kept increasing with the passage of time. It is
further wrong to suggest that because of this scheme, I was benefited if I myself
did not participate in that scheme. It is further wrong to suggest that the condition
precedent for partcipating in that scheme was pre deposit of a cheque of
Rs.1,25,000/-, pursuant to which the accused deposited the cheque Ex.CW1/A in
that scheme. It is also wrong to suggest that I misused that cheque, despite the
accused having discontinued the scheme with effect from January 2022 and
despite the fact that the accounts in this behalf stood settled. It is wrong to
suggest that at that point of time in place of returning the cheque Ex.CW1/1, I
misused the same. It is wrong to suggest that I had promised to return that
cheque, but instead of returning the same it was misused and filed the present
false and fabricated complaint.
It may be correct that the accused herein may be knowing the
persons who had filed the different complaints u/s 138 NI Act against my wife,
since they are working in the court. It is wrong to suggest that with malafide
intentions and to retaliate with the accused for the aforesaid reason present false
complaint has been filed. My wife is not engaged in any business, though she is
prop. of Pradeep News Agency. It is wrong to suggest that this firm has taken
loan as well. It is wrong to suggest that this firm has taken loan from the
aforementioned persons, as mentioned in this paragraph. This firm is engaged in
the distribution of newspapers and magazines.
Q. Who look after the work of Pradeep News Agency ?
A. I myself.
-- 4 of 5 --
-4-
It is correct that 2 out of aforementioned 2 cases were referred even
to mediation. It is wrong to suggest that to put pressure upon the accused that
mediation was also got made unsuccessfull by way of our non appearance on the
part of accused in those cases.
It is wrong to suggest that my wife issued any of the cheques.
It is correct that those cheques were signed by my wife.
At this stage, objection is raised by counsel for the complainant, on the ground
that witness cannot admit or denied the signatures of his wife and cannot answer
on behalf of his wife, objection is further raised by stating that signatures are not
shown to the witness.
Cousnel for the accused submits that answer has already been given
witness. Objection overuled.
It is wrong to suggest that accused has been falsely implicated in the
matter for the reasons stated above. It is wrong to suggest that present case
absolutely false. It is further wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
RO&AC
(Snehil Sharma)
Judicial Magistrate First Class (NI Act) – 01
PHC/New Delhi/02.09.202
-- 5 of 5 --