Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMEER BAJPAI
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
(SHAHDARA), KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 105/2024
Rahul Aggarwal
S/o Sh. Narender Aggarwal
R/o 212, Surya Niketan,
Delhi-110092. …. Revisionist
Versus
1. State
2. Mohit Aggarwal
S/o Sh.Amarnath Aggarwal
R/o H.No.1/10028, Gali no.3G,
West Gorakh Park, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032. ….. Respondents
07.09.2024
ORDER
1. This is a revision petition moved against the order dated
31.01.2024 as passed by Ld. MM (NI Act) Digital, Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
2. It is submitted by the revisionist that the impugned order and
notice as framed against the revisionist by the Ld. Trial Court is against
the law and facts on record. Further, while passing the impugned order
the Ld. Trial Court did not apply its judicial mind and not appreciated the
contentions and submissions of the revisionist. Further, there is no
legally enforceable liability against the revisionist as alleged in the
complaint and rather the respondent has concocted a story and filed a
Page No.1/6
-- 1 of 6 --
false and fabricated complaint which is devoid of merits.
3. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the
revisionist submitted that not only the notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C has been
framed by the Ld. Trial Court against the revisionist erroneously but one
of the answer as given by the revisionist in response to the notice, was not
included, perhaps due to the mistake of the steno or for any other reason.
4. By way of the present petition, the revisionist has challenged
the order dated 31.01.2024 of the Ld. Trial court, which is only on the
application, which was moved by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial
Court for correction of the notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. As such, although, in
the present petition, the petitioner states that the notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C
was illegally framed but as he has only challenged the order dated
31.01.2024, this court will not give any opinion on the question of
framing of notice and will only consider if the application of the
revisionist dated 29.07.2023 vide impugned order dated 31.01.2024 was
correctly passed by the Ld. Trial court.
5. The Court must note that in the present petition, although the
revisionist has challenged the order dated 31.01.2024 but has not
explained as to how the said order has some error, irregularity or
illegality.
6. To make the facts clear, it would be appropriate to reproduce
here, the relevant para of the impugned order, in which the submission of
Page No.2/6
-- 2 of 6 --
the revisionist as made in the application for correction of the notice u/s.
251 Cr.P.C was noted:
“It is contended by the accused that when the
notice was framed upon him u/s. 251 Cr.P.C.,
he had given a reply to one of the questions that
“amount in figure Rs.30,000/- was filled in by
me and not in words and the amount of
Rs.30,000/- was converted into Rs.3,00,000/-
by adding one zero by and on behalf of the
complainant” but that was not typed by the
steno and vide this application correction is
sought in the same. It is further submitted that
this very fact came to the knowledge of the
accused when the file was inspected on
27.07.2023. It is further submitted that the said
statement being material and going to root
cause of the case with allegations of forgery and
fraud done by the complainant, needs to be part
of the notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. It is, therefore,
prayed that said application be allowed and the
statement of accused u/s. 251 Cr.P.C be
changed...”
7. Again, it would be better if the operative part of the
impugned order is also reproduced:
“Perusal of the record shows that
notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C was framed against the
accused on 15.05.2.023 where the accused has
not pleaded guilty and has also recorded his
plea of defence. It is pertinent to mention here
that statement u/s. 294 Cr.P. of the accused was
also framed recorded on the very same day.
Perusal of the application filed by
the accused shows that out of the six questions
put by the Court to the accused while framing
notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C., no specific question has
Page No.3/6
-- 3 of 6 --
been mentioned in the application to which the
said reply was given. Upon oral enquiry, it is
submitted by counsel for the accused that the
said answer was given to the question no.5 I.e
“Q5. Did you fill the particulars on the cheque
in question including the date and name of the
payee?”
However no such contention has been
raised with respect to the questin no.2 of the
statement u/s. 294 Cr.P.C which is “Q2. Do you
admit that the other parts of the cheque was also
filled by you?”
Perusal of both the question shows that
same answer has been given to both the
questions which are similar in nature with
respect to the query being made through them.
It is also noteworthy that accused has signed the
notice u/.s. 251 Cr.P.C as well as the statement
u/s. 294 Cr.P.C in the rpeence of his counsel.
However, without going into the merits
of the claim raised by the accused, it is made
clear that the Cr.P.C does not provide for any
provision in which answer given by the accused
can be changed at a later stage when the same
has already been signed by the accused after
reading the contents of the same and with due
legal assistance.
As such, the present application is
dismissed being un-maintainable.”
8. During the course of arguments before this court, Ld.
Counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist had infact filled
the figure in the cheques in question as Rs.30,000/- only and the
complainant by manipulation added one more zero after it and made the
figure as 3,00,000/- and thereafter accordingly put the figure in the word
as Three Lacs.
Page No.4/6
-- 4 of 6 --
9. Ld. Counsel submitted that at the time of framing of the
notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C. the revisionist said the same fact to the court but
due to the fault of the stenographer of the court or for any other reason,
the same was not mentioned in it and later on, at the time of inspection of
the file, the revisionist came to know about the said fact.
10. Ld. Trial Court noted that not only in the notice u/s. 251
Cr.P.C but in the statement u/s. 294 Cr.P.C also the same question was put
to the revisionist and he replied the same answer that he filled in the
cheques, the date only. The observation of the Ld. Trial court is
absolutely correct that if the answer of the revisionist was missed in the
notice, the same could not have been missed in the statement u/s. 294
Cr.P.C. This court is also of the view that the mistake could not be done
on two occasions.
11. During the course of arguments of the present petition, the
Court specifically asked the Ld. Counsel for the revisionist to show to the
court if the revisionist had anywhere mentioned in the reply dated
25.07.2022, to the legal notice of the respondent, that the amount in
figure Rs.30,000/- was filled by him and not the amount in words and the
amount of Rs.30,000/- was converted into Rs.3,00,000/- by adding one
zero and on behalf of the complainant. Ld. Counsel as well as the
revisionist then went through the reply thoroughly but could not find the
same. This Court, thus, observes that if this was really the fact, the
revisionist would have mentioned the said fact in the reply to the legal
Page No.5/6
-- 5 of 6 --
notice also but he did not mention the same in it. Thus, this court is of the
view that the Ld. Trial Court recorded only the answer which was given
by the revisionist and by moving the application before the Ld. Trial
Court for correction in the notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C, the revisionist just tried
to manipulate the proceedings. Further, this court is also of the view that
the revisionist was in assistance of a lawyer and when he signed the
notice as well as the statement u/s. 294 Cr.P.C, he had signed the same
after reading and understanding the contents thereof. Further, the court is
also in agreement with the finding of Ld. Trial court that no provision of
Cr.P.C. provided for making any such correction as desired by the
revisionist.
12. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, as discussed
above, to the mind of the court, the application for correction of the
notice u/s. 251 Cr.P.C, as moved by the revisionist before the Ld. Trial
Court was frivolous and the Ld. Trial court correctly dismissed the same.
13. Thus, the court finds no merits in the present revision
petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
(Sameer Bajpai )
Addl. Sessions Judge-03
Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts,
Dated: 07.09.2024
Page No.6/6
-- 6 of 6 --