Final Order 11

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SHRI KUMAR RAJAT,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Cr. Rev. No. 44/2024
CNR No. DLSH01-001005-2024
PS Anand Vihar
ANIL MAHESHWARI,
S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Maheshwari,
R/o H.No. A-74, Anand Vihar,
Delhi-110092.
...Revisionist
Vs.
RAHUL VERMA,
S/o Late Sh. Vinod Kumar,
R/o H.No. D-495, Street No. 12,
Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.
Also at:
D-548, Gali No. 14, Bhajanpura, Pusta No. 5,
District North East, Delhi-53.
...Respondent
Present during the arguments:-
Sh. Vivek Srivastava, Ld. counsel for revisionist
along with revisionist.
Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Verma, Ld. Counsel for
respondent along with respondent.
ORDER
1. The present revision has been filed on behalf of
revisionist for setting aside or modification in the order dated
18.12.2023 passed by Ld. MM (NI Act) wherein Ld. Trial Court
observed that the legal demand notice was served beyond the
limitation period and thus, dismissed the criminal complaint case
No. 923/2023 u/s 138 NI Act filed by the revisionist.
Cr. Rev. No. 44/2024
Anil Maheshwari Vs. Rahul Verma
Page No. 1 of 6
-- 1 of 6 --
2. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist
that revisionist is engaged in the business of manufacturing and
supply of jewellery articles and respondent approached him as
Skilled Craftsman and respondent used to supply labour for
manufacturing of jewellery articles after gold was supplied to
him by revisionist and respondent was having possession of large
quantity of jewellery articles, which was to be delivered to
revisionist. The respondent issued 4 cheques of Rs. 3,30,000/-
each, total amounting to Rs. 13,20,000/- to the complainant
including cheque no. 000002 dated 16.03.2023 of Kotak
Mahindra Bank of Rs. 3,30,000/- in lieu of the said articles to be
delivered to revisionist. The revisionist stopped giving work to
respondent due to his past conduct and the brother of the
respondent namely Vipin Verma handed over a cheque of Rs.
12,00,000/- dated 26.12.2023 as guarantee to the revisionist and
then, revisionist started giving work to respondent from
07.09.2022 and the business resumed between them and the
respondent agreed to return the jewellery articles as per
settlement dated 25.07.2022, but did not return the same nor
accounted for the gold in his possession and revisionist intimated
the respondent that he would present the cheques in his
possession by way of legal notice.
3. It is further submitted that the revisionist had
presented the cheque bearing no. 000002 of Kotak Mahindra
Bank dated 16.03.2023 of Rs. 3,30,000/- for encashment, but it
was dishonoured for the reason ‘Payment Stopped by Drawer’
vide retuning memo dated 17.03.2023, which was dispatched
vide DOD No. 22015350007421 through Shree Maruti Courier
Cr. Rev. No. 44/2024
Anil Maheshwari Vs. Rahul Verma
Page No. 2 of 6
-- 2 of 6 --
on 21.03.2023 and the same was received by revisionist on
22.03.2023 as per the delivery voucher of said courier. Then, he
served the legal demand notice dated 18.04.2023 within statutory
period, which was duly served upon respondent/accused, but he
failed to comply the same and then, complaint case was filed.
4. It is further submitted that Ld. Trial Court exercised
the jurisdiction erroneously and dismissed the complaint of
revisionist despite legal notice being served within limitation and
the said impugned order dated 18.12.2023 is based on conjecture
and surmises and against the law and wrongly calculated the
period of limitation from the date of dishonour of cheque, rather
than receipt of returning memo, which was 22.03.2023 and the
same is now confirmed by the DCB Bank and revisionist was not
afforded opportunity by Ld. Trial Court of being heard on the
point of limitation and thus, the said impugned order is liable to
be set aside. It is thus prayed that the impugned order be set aside
and original criminal complaint be reinstated. Ld. Counsel for
revisionist has relied upon the following judgment:
1. M/s. Rayapati Power Energy Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Indian
Renewable Energy Agency Ltd. (IREDA), CRL. M. C.
2445/2021.
5. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that Ld. Trial
Court has passed legally correct order, based on the
material/document on record and that legal notice was not served
within the statutory period as rightly held by Ld. Trial Court and
there is no infirmity in the said order and the revision is liable to
be dismissed being not maintainable. The respondent has made a
complaint dated 15.03.2023 to the Commissioner of Police
Cr. Rev. No. 44/2024
Anil Maheshwari Vs. Rahul Verma
Page No. 3 of 6
-- 3 of 6 --
against the revisionist for threatening him and taking the
cheques, Aadhar Card and PAN Card.
6. Heard and perused the record.
7. The revisionist and the respondent were having
business dealings and the respondent/accused had issued some
cheques including cheque bearing no. 000002 of Kotak Mahindra
Bank dated 16.03.2023 of Rs. 3,30,000/- to the revisionist RG
Maheshwari Jewellers, which was dishonoured for the reason
“Payment stopped by drawer” vide returning memo dated
17.03.2023 and legal notice was issued and for non payment of
money, the complaint u/s 138 NI Act was filed against proposed
accused Rahul Verma.
8. Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint of
revisionist on the ground that legal demand notice has to be
issued within 30 days from the receipt of information of the
dishonour of the cheque and he relied upon the judgment of
Dashrath Rup Singh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2014
SC 3519, wherein it was held that the following ingredients are
necessary to constitute the offence u/s 138 NI Act:
(a) The dishonoured cheque is presented to the drawee bank
within a period of six months from the date of its issue.
(b) If the complainant has demanded payment of cheque
amount within thirty days of receipt of information by him from the bank
regarding the dishonour of the cheque and
(c) If the drawer has failed to pay the cheque amount within
fifteen days of receipt of such notice.
9. The said cheque was presented by the complainant
in his banker DCB Bank, Preet Vihar Branch and it was returned
dishonoured vide returning memo dated 17.03.2023 with remarks
Cr. Rev. No. 44/2024
Anil Maheshwari Vs. Rahul Verma
Page No. 4 of 6
-- 4 of 6 --
“Payment stopped by drawer” and then, legal notice was issued
to the accused Rahul Verma on 18.04.2023.
10. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has submitted that
said returning memo was sent to the complainant vide courier
Shree Maruti and it was received by the complainant on
22.03.2023 and he has filed a document of the said courier
agency, which is a delivery voucher dated 22.03.2023 in which it
is apparently mentioned that it was received by the complainant
RG Maheshwari Jewellers on 22.03.2023 vide DOD No.
22015350007421. The concerned Branch Manager of DCB
Bank, Preet Vihar, Delhi has furnished a report on its letter head
dated 09.07.2025 thereby mentioning and confirming that
returning memo was sent to M/s. RG Maheshwari Jewellers
through Shree Maruti Courier and it was dispatched on
21.03.2023 and delivered on 22.03.2023, thereby confirming the
contention of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
11. The limitation for giving legal demand notice is 30
days from the receipt of information from the bank regarding
dishonour of cheque and in this case, the returning memo i.e. the
information regarding dishonour was received by complainant on
22.03.2023 and legal notice was issued on 18.04.2023 i.e. within
limitation, in view of
Dashrath (Supra) and the statutory
provision. The contentions of Ld. Counsel for respondent are not
maintainable and also the present revision is maintainable as
there was no acquittal of the accused vide the impugned order
and in view of the judgment of
M/s. Celestium Financial Vs. A.
Gnanasekaran Etc., 2025 INSC 804, even the appeal against the
acquittal u/s 138 NI Act shall lie before the Sessions Court.
Cr. Rev. No. 44/2024
Anil Maheshwari Vs. Rahul Verma
Page No. 5 of 6
-- 5 of 6 --
12. In
M/s. Rayapati Power Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), it
was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated
31.01.2022 that the issue of limitation is to be decided from the
date of receipt of return statement and not the date of return of
cheque. Hon’ble High Court relied upon
Econ Antri Ltd. Vs.
Rom Industries Ltd. & Anr. 2014 (11) SCC 769 and
Manoj
Investments Ltd. Vs. Pattukola Properties Ltd. & Anr., 2001 (6)
SCC 582.
13. Since the legal notice was sent within the period of
limitation, the complaint of complainant was maintainable before
the Ld. Trial Court against the accused u/s 138 NI Act and did
not suffer from any illegality. Thus, the impugned order of Ld.
Trial Court dated 18.12.2023 is not sustainable and deserves to
be set aside being not correct and passed without considering the
said courier receipt and that the returning memo was received on
22.03.2023 by the complainant.
CONCLUSION
14. Considering the above, the present revision of the
revisionist Anil Maheshwari is allowed and the impugned order
dated 18.12.2023 of Ld. Trial Court is set aside and the Ld. Trial
Court is directed to restore the case/complaint in its original
number and position and decide the case in accordance with law.
This revision petition is accordingly disposed off.
TCR be sent back to the Ld. Trial Court.
File be consigned to Record Room after necessary
compliance.
(Kumar Rajat)
ASJ-07/SHD/KKD Courts/Delhi
04.08.2025
Cr. Rev. No. 44/2024
Anil Maheshwari Vs. Rahul Verma
Page No. 6 of 6
-- 6 of 6 --