Org Informatics Ltd v. State & Anr

order dated

30.09.2010 and

12.01.2011 observing that the case shall be proceeded as, summary trial. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of the judgment ,of the. Apex Court in Adalat Prasad Vs, Rooplal Jiuidal & Ors.

(2007),, 7 see 338, the learned Magistrate 'Could not have reviewed his owri order.

¶9The second submission of the learned .c'ounsel for y petitioners is that by the impugned order, the learned Crl, M.C. No.953/2011 • Magistrate has directed complainant to file his statement' of defence. It .was contended that even though it was assumed that Magistrate has to follow summary trial procedure in terms of, the Rajesh. Agarwal case jSuiipral, ' the same could not be followed retrospectively as learned Magistrate had already proceeded to deal with the case by following the procedure of a summons trial case. Both these pleas were negated by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by a detailed order and it was observed by him that no prejudice was to • be caused to rights of the present petitioners by following the directions given by the High Court of Delhi in Rajesh ,Agarwal case jsiipra| and that the petitioners were at liberty to file a case under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instrument Act for seeking the 'recall of the witnesses for the purpose of examination of their plea of defence. The petitioners have preferred present petition by invoking Section 482' Cr.P.C. as they were still not satisfied. , .' • Crl. M.C. No.953/2011- • '

¶10I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the two judgments that were relied upon by the petitioners in respect of his submissions which were made by him before the Sessions Court. I ' have also gone through the impugned orders.

¶11At the, outset, it may be pertinent here to mention that although Section 482 Cr.P.C. starts with a non obstante clause and reiterates powers of the High Court to pass any order to prevent the abuse of process of law or to pass any such order to secure the ends of justice, is not conditioned or curtailed by any provision but still Court has discretion to see whether the invocation of Section Cr.P.C. is justified or not. It means that even if a party, has preferred a revision petition under Section 397,Cr.P.C., he can-still prefer a petition under-Section 482 Cr.P.C. if the ingredients for the application of Section 482 Cr.P.C. are satisfied, namely, the fact that the situation is such which would warrant interference, by the High Court for the purpose of preventing the abuse of processes of law or to secure the ends of justice. . In the instant case, I do CrI. M.C. No.953/2011 ' , Page^JoflO V V V-V' not'find'that there is any possibility of interference by the High Court as there is no abuse of processes of law nor does any order require to be passed that is contrary to the one which has been passed by the Sessions Court which directed the petitioners to seek a recall of witnes'ses under-j V I Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instrument -Act for the purpose of establishing his defence. It may also be pertinent here to mention that Section 397 sub clause 3 of Cr.P.C. prohibits, a party from filing a second revision' petition. The present petitioners have already chosen to file a petition before the Sessions Court and having done so, they are prohibited from filing a second revision petition even though it has been termed as a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. Having said feo, a perusal of the provisions under Section 143 read with Section 145 of the Negotiable Instrument Act would make, it amply clear that the concern of the legislature, while incorporating Section 143 and 145 by way of amendment w.ef. 06.02.2003, was essentially to curtail the delay which was occurring in the disposal of these complaints under Section of ..the Negotiable Ci-r. M.C. No.953/2011 • , ' PageSoflO r Instrument Act. The mandate of the law was that the case should be tried summarily as far as possible and further, the trial should he conducted on day to day basis and-preferably be disposed of within a period of sbc months. In the instant case, the entire effort of the petitioners seems to be to scuttle the trial and indulge in dilatory tactics. The petitioners had already brought the matter before the High Court earlier in the first round and. when, it was • disposed of by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Pathak oh'

29.09.2010. In present case also learned Additional Sessions Judge has specifically observed that no prejudice, is likely to be caused to. the petitioners in the, the trial proceeds according to summary procedure and the only thing that is to be done by the present petitioner is to file their statement of defence and then seek a recall of the complainant/respondent witness for the purpose of cross-examination as complainant • has already made a statement that the evidence which has been filed by way of affidavit at the stage of pre summoning may also be treated as evidence at the stage of post summoning and therefore, Crl. M.C. No.953/2011 \V j in considered view the only purpose of filing the present • petition is to indulge in dilatory tactics, which cannot be permitted by the Court. The plea that the learned Trial Court has reviewed its own order or that the judgment title Rajesli Agarwal case . (Supral has been applied retrospectively have already been dealt, with by Sessions Court. I feel that it need not be gone into afresh by this Court.

¶12For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the petition and' accordingly, all the present petitions are accordirigly dismissed.

¶13Dasti. Amguast 01, 2011 KP SHALI, Jo CrI. M.C. No.953/2011

24 to 36 % 01.8.2011 Present: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Yudhishtar Kahol, APP for the State. + CRL.M.C. Nos. 2409/2011. 2410/2011, 2411/2011. 2412/2011. 2413/2011. 2414/2011. 2415/2011. 2416/2011. 2417/2011. 2418/2011. 2420/2011. 2421/2011. 2422/2011 and 2424/2011 For detailed order see CrI. M. (C) No. 2409/2011. V.K. SHALI, J. AUGUST 01, 2011 RN Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. /• H - IW.THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CrL M. C, Mo,2409/2011 Date off Decisicjsi ^ Ql o08o2011 IMFORMATECS LTD. Fetitiomer Through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Adv. Versus STATE & AMR. • —— Respondents • . • . • Through: Mr. Yudhishtar, Kahol, APP CORAM I • ' . f'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. • 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not 3: Whether the judgment should be reported' in the Digest ? ' •' '• ¥"K. SHALI, J. forall , } 1. .This is a criminal misc.' main petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 30.09.2010 • ..and 12.01.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan .. . . Magistrate in complaint case no. 812/20.10 and the order dated 18.05.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge in criminal revision petition no. 34/2011. > CrI. M.C.,No.953/2011 " • , . Page 1 of10 -A .2. It may he pertinent here to mention that" criminal misc. main cases bearing no. 2410 to 2422 are.also between the. same parties challenging the said three orders except the fact- that they are passed in different complaint cases. This case will be treated as a lead case giving the reasons for the dismissal of the petition' which would be equally • applicable to the othei: petitions. 3- The brief facts of the case are that the ,respondent no. 2/IBM India Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138' of the Negotiable Instrument - Act against present petitioner, ORG Informatics Ltd. and its three Directors, namely, Ajoy Khandheria, Rajesh Suri and Sushil Kumar who are petitioner nos. 2 to 4. • The petitioner . no. 1/company had allegedly issued cheque for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to respondent no. 2 • which was . dishonoured on presentation. It was also alleged that the petitioner nos. 2 to 4 were the directors of petitioner no. • 1/company and weriC responsible for the conduct of the business of petitioner company,' and therefore, •^ • vicariouslyliable for the commissionof the offence. The CrI. M.C. No.953/2011 respondentno. 2 compliedmth the statutoryprovisionsof thd issuance ofdemand notice etc. The same is allegedto \ have not been complied with by 'the petitioners, accordingly,the aforesaidcomplaintwas filed agamst the- • • presentpetitionersby the respondentno.2. Along.withthe complaintan affidavitwas filed by way of pre summoning evidence and the learned Magistrate issued notice to the . presentpetitioners. On appearance,notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C was given to them through their counsel on 08.04.2010 and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 12.05.20I0^for prosecution evidence. • 4. On 12.05.2010 the Presiding Officerwas on leave and the matter was adjourned to 08.07.2010. On 08.07.2010,the. respondentno. 2 made a statementthat the affidavitby way of.evidencefiled by it at the pre summoningstage may be treated as post summoning evidence also. The matter . • • was adjourned for mediation which did not yield any result. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 23.09.2010 for the purpose of cross examination of the respondent ^ nos.2's witnesses. On 30.09.2010, the case was CrI. M.C. No.953/2011 Page 3of 10 X >, transferred to Ms. ' Surbhi Sbarma Vats'. The learned -Magistrate who noted that in ^^iew of the directions passed by the High Court of Delhi in the judgmerit titled RajesSi Agarwal Vs. State & Asiffo 171 (2010) DLT 51, Crl. Misc. No. 1996/2010, the matter shall be proceeded as summary . trial. ' Accordingly, matter was adjourned to 12.01.201