Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Dilip Kumar Versus Sunita Mittal

Dshonour of cheque - invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C - Held that:- The cross-examination to the respondent/complainant(CW 1) on the point of asking for the production of the ITRs though not relevant directly but the learned Metropolitan Magistrate since directed the respondent/complainant to produce the ITRs for the period 2005-2006 to 2011-2012 was made under Section 91 Cr.P.C. and further cross-examination has to be based on its relevancy part only. - Here, it .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to further cross-examine the respondent/complainant(witness CW 1) on irrelevant aspects which are not directly relevant for the purpose of determination of the offence committed. - The direction given by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 24.05.2014 to the respondent/complainant is an intermediate order passed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. which is in the form of a final order for the purpose of giving the direction for production of the ITRs is concerned. - Therefore, the o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

specific material available on record to invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - CRL.M.C. 4230/2014 - Dated:- 2-3-2017 - I.S. MEHTA, J. Petitioner Through: Mr. R.S. Chauhan, Advocate with Mr. Varun Nischal, Advocate. Respondent Through: Mr. Anand Prakash, Advocate. MR. I.S. MEHTA JUDGMENT 1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 23.08.2014 pa .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tiable Instruments Act, 1881 on 08.08.2012 qua against Dilip Kumar the present petitioner and two other persons, i.e. Iqbal Chand and Vicky Kumar. 3. The basis of the complaint under Section 138 NI Act was that the petitioner had issued six post dated cheques in favour of the respondent in furtherance of the loan agreement dated 24.10.2011 for ₹ 1,43,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty Three Lacs Only). However, the said cheques were dishonoured on presentation. Thereafter the resp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.P.C. against the petitioner vide order dated 16.02.2013. 5. During the trial proceedings the respondent/complainant(CW-1) was cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner and several questions were asked from her one of which related to the income tax returns(ITRs). Consequently, the learned MM deferred the further cross-examination of the respondent/complainant for want of ITRs for the period 2005-2006 to 2011-2012 vide order dated 24.05.2014 in C.C. No. 1555/1/12.

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fford further opportunity for cross-examination to the petitioner/accused in which the learned MM would allow only those relevant questions confined to repayment of the loan by the petitioner/accused. Hence the present petition. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act and when the respondent/complainant was in the witness box, the petitioner had cross examined the witness pertai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d by the respondent/complainant before the Court of Sessions and the learned ASJ allowed the said revision petition vide impugned order dated 23.08.2014. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cross-examination already conducted has been deleted by the Sessions Court and the scope of further cross-examination has been made very limited to the extent of repayment which should not have been done. It is further submitted that the legal notice and the property t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lf from the clutches of the respondent/complainant and rebut the presumption. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned ASJ is bad in law as the order dated 24.05.2014 passed by the trial Court was an interlocutory order to which revision should not have been entertained and prays that the impugned order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the learned ASJ is liable to be set aside as the same is bad in law. Reliance is placed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ted that the impugned order dated 23.08.2014 is not an interlocutory order rather it is an intermediate order. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the Court of Sessions is correct and prays that the present petition be dismissed. 14. The challenge in the present petition is to the impugned order dated 23.08.2014 passed by the learned ASJ and the relevant para of the said order is reproduced as under:

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Mittal Vs Dalip Kumar NOTICE OF ACCUSATION u/s. 251 Cr.P.C I, Shefali Barnala Tandon, MM Rohini, Courts, Delhi do hereby serve notice upon you accused Dalip Kumar s/o Shri Iqbal Chand, Partner M/s. Vikas Properties, 96, Priyadarshni Vihar, (near Kalyan Vihar), Delhi-09 as under: That you in discharge of your legal liabilities/financial obligations had given cheques bearing No. 562546 dated 12.06.2012, 562547 dated 5.6.2012, 450359 dated 26.6.2012, 450360 dated 3.7.2012 for ₹ 25, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

legal notice dated 14.7.2012 through Speed post and courier advising you to pay the amount of the aforesaid cheque to the complainant which you failed to pay within the requisite time period and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, within the cognizance of this court. Show cause why you should not be tried by this Court for the said Notice in accordance with law. RO & AC (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON) MM/Rohini/Delhi/16.2.2013 Notice has been read over an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the complainant but after I made the payment towards the entire loan amount. On making the payment more than 50%, the properties were registered back in my name. However the original documents were kept by the complainant. Thereafter, on making the balance payment of ₹ 25 lacs on 24.5.2012, the complainant returned me original documents of my property. I had repaid the loan amount by way of cheques and cash and I have receipt of the same. Therefore, nothing remains due upon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

defined as: "a judgment deciding a point within a case, but not necessarily the whole case; a decree or judgment given in the course of an action or as a preliminary to coming to trial." As per Webster's Third International Dictionary, the expression "interlocutory" has been defined as: "not final or definite; made or done during the progress of an action; intermediate, provisional". 17. In ordinary parlance an interlocutory order is an o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Amar Nath vs. State of Haryana; AIR 1977 SC 2185 has observed: "...It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties... "2. Intermediate Order 19. In the common parlance an intermediat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is necessary or desirable for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code by or before such Court or officer, such Court may issue a summons, or such officer a written order, to the person in whose possession or power such document or thing is believed to be, requiring him to attend and produce it, or to produce it, at the time and place stated in the summons or order. (2) Any person required under this section merely to produce a document o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he postal or telegraph authority." 21. In the present petition the order dated 24.05.2014 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate is in the form of the direction for the production of the income tax returns (ITRs) for the period 2005-2006 to 2011-2012 of the respondent/complainant at the time of cross-examination by the counsel of the petitioner. 22. The cross-examination of the respondent/complainant would be on the basis of its relevancy of the facts of the a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fence in the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. has stated that the cheques in question were issued by him and he had repaid the loan amount through cheques and cash and has receipts of the same therefore, he does not owe any liability against the respondent/complainant and the respondent/complainant had misused his cheques and he had issued a legal notice dated 14.07.2012 to the respondent/complainant and thereafter the respondent/complainant represented the cheques which were dishonoured. < .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erty to further cross-examine the respondent/complainant(witness CW 1) to frustrate the entire objective of the summary trial or harass the respondent/complainant. 27. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned ADJ vide impugned order dated 23.08.2014 has curtailed the scope of further cross-examination is not convincing and cannot be accepted as the petitioner/accused cannot be allowed to further cross-examine the respondent/complainant(witness CW 1) o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     Update Alerts     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version