2023 (8) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity. The petitioner was summoned and had appeared in the said complaint case on 01.02.2017. Notice was framed under section 251 Cr.PC against him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, he had filed an application under section 145(2) of the N.I. Act denying the liability, and had disclosed his plea of defence that he and the respondent were partners in one future realtor company and during the period 2006-2009, they jointly did the business along with another partner Manish Jain; and his cheque books were in the possession of the respondent. The respondent had taken out one signed cheque leaflet and had fraudulently misused the same in 2014. The contents filled in the same were not in his handwriting. The petitioner had no liability to pay the cheque amount. Petitioner had sought permission to cross-examine the respondent. Vide order dated 27.02.2018 the application of the petitioner under section 145(2) of the N.I. Act was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the respondent and the matter was adjourned for the respondents' cross-examination to 30.06.2018; on 30.06.2018, his earlier counsel was out of station and therefore, could not appear. On the first....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was filed only when cost was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 18.05.2017. Even after the filing of the application, the petitioner sought adjournments for arguments on one pretext or the other and a further cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. Said application was finally allowed on 27.02.2018 i.e. after one year and 5 dates of hearing. Considering his conduct, the petitioner's opportunity to cross examine the respondent/ complainant was rightly closed by the Ld. MM on 30.06.2018, when adjournment was sought by the petitioner for the cross-examination as the petitioner had been responsible for the delay in disposal of the respondent's complaint. 3.2 Ld. counsel further submitted that even after entering into the settlement and admitting his liability, the petitioner did not comply with the terms of settlement; the cheques given by the petitioner in terms of the settlement were dishonored. It is further submitted that as per the settlement, the petitioner was required to make the payment of Rs. 2 lakh each on 25.08.2019, 13.09.2019, 13.10.2019 and 13.11.2019 and another payment of Rs. 23 lacs on 23.02.2020 i.e. before the pandemic struck. However, the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported that none for the accused/petitioner herein appeared and returned the matter as unsettled noting that the complainant/ respondent herein stated that the petitioner/accused was not keen on settling. 5.1. Record further shows that none appeared for the petitioner/accused on 24.10.2016, the date fixed before the Ld. M.M. As the matter was received as unsettled and none appeared, NBWs were issued against the petitioner returnable on 07.12.2016. Before the next date of hearing, the petitioner filed an application for cancellation of NBWs, which were recalled vide order dated 16.11.2016 with the warning to the petitioner/accused to be careful in future and the matter was listed for 07.12.2016. On 07.12.2016, the petitioner again stated that he was willing to settle the matter and accordingly the matter was adjourned to 23.01.2017 for settlement, if any, or framing of notice. On 23.01.2017, the petitioner sought one week's time to settle the matter and the matter was again adjourned to 01.02.2017. 5.2 The record also shows that finally, notice u/s 251 Cr.PC was framed against the petitioner on 01.02.2017. At request of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 18.03.2017 for mo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lf of the petitioner herein despite repeated calls. Considering that the petitioner was intentionally avoiding the process to delay the proceedings, NBWs against him and notice to surety were again issued for 19.09.2019. As NBWs remained unexecuted, on 19.09.2019, the Ld. Magistrate directed initiation of proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner adjourning the matter to 04.12.2019. However, before the next date of hearing i.e. on 07.11.2019, an application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of NBWs, was taken up. Though there was no appearance on behalf of the complainant/respondent herein, the Ld. Magistrate considering the petitioner's submission that the matter has been settled between the parties and that petitioner is ready to pay as per the settlement, proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C. were recalled, subject to cost and the matter was put up for the date already fixed i.e. 04.12.2019. 5.4. It is seen that on 04.12.2019, the matter was adjourned to 27.01.2020 recording that the matter is at the stage of settlement between the parties before the Mediation Cell, High Court of Delhi. On 27.01.2020, parties reported that the matter has been settled before the Mediation Ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough video conferencing on 04.01.2021. Matter was listed for consideration on the respondent's application u/s 340 Cr.PC and thereafter, also for the statement of the accused/petitioner u/s 313 Cr.PC, on 09.02.2021, 06.03.2021 and then on 27.03.2021. The petitioner did not file reply to the application u/s 340 Cr.PC despite final opportunity. But later, he stated that he had not received the copy of the said application. In the interest of justice, another opportunity was given to the petitioner to file the reply within a week adjourning the matter to 27.03.2021 for the petitioner's statement u/s 313 Cr.PC and arguments on the respondents' application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Order dated 27.03.2021 reads : "... CC No. 519453/2016 27.03.2021 Present : Sh. Anuj Arora, Ld. counsel for the complainant along with complainant in person. Sh. Manjeet Singh Ahluwalia, Ld. Counsel for accused alongwith accused in person. Matter is at the stage of SA under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Reply has been filed on behalf of the accused to the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., filed on behalf of the complainant. Taken on record. Copy of the same has been supplied to the accused for the complainant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,00,000/- has not been paid by the accused till date despite multiple opportunities. Ld. counsel for the accused submits that as per instructions received from the accused, accused shall make payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant by NDOH. He further submits that accused shall also finalize the time line to make remaining payment of Rs. 87,00,000/- by NDOH. ......." 5.8 On 23.12.2021, the petitioner submitted that he was unable to comply with the settlement and requested for proceeding the matter on merits. Accordingly, arguments on the petitioner's pending application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. were heard and the matter was put up for orders on 13.01.2022 and thereafter, to 03.02.2022. On 03.02.2022, the petitioner's application u/s 311 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, which is under challenge before this court. 6.0. Above record speaks for itself. It is a stark case of impugnity with which the petitioner has taken the system for a ride. Complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed in 2014 and more than 9 years have elapsed since then. The petitioner had been seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other. Time and again, the petitioner got the coercive process/execution of NBWs halted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay of SLP, the Apex Court while dismissing the SLP, in paras 9 and 11 observed as under :- "9. In the case at hand, as we have stated hereinbefore, the examination-in-chief continued for long and the matter was adjourned seven times. The defendant sought adjournment after adjournment for cross-examination on some pretext or the other which are really not entertainable in law. But the trial court eventually granted permission subject to payment of costs. Regardless of the allowance extended, the defendant stood embedded on his adamantine platform and prayed for adjournment as if it was his right to seek adjournment on any ground whatsoever and on any circumstance. The non-concern of the petitioner-defendant shown towards the proceedings of the court is absolutely manifest. The disregard shown to the plaintiff's age is also visible from the marathon of interlocutory applications filed. A counsel appearing for a litigant has to have institutional responsibility. The Code of Civil Procedure so command. Applications are not to be filed on the grounds which we have referred to hereinabove and that too in such a brazen and obtrusive manner. It is wholly reprehensible. The law does n....