In CRL.M.C. 1639/2021 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court dismisses petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act; Imposes cost on petitioner for delaying tactics
Justice Saurabh Banerjee [31-10-2023]

Read Order: Guneet Bhasin V. The State NCT of Delhi & Anr

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 2, 2023: The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). The Court also imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner, observing that the present petition appeared to have ulterior motives, possibly aimed at delaying or obstructing the proceedings and trial before the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM).

The facts revealed that the complainant had initially invested Rs.50,00,000 and later invested an additional Rs.20,00,000 with the petitioner/accused. The petitioner had assured a double return. Subsequently, the petitioner issued a promissory note, acknowledging his liability to pay Rs.2,47,53,000 to the complainant and his wife. Thereafter, nine cheques, totalling Rs.73,00,000 issued by the petitioner, were dishonoured upon presentation.

The single-judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee emphasized that the court should sparingly exercise its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and that it should be done with great care and caution, particularly when a party can show reasonable grounds justifying the court's exercise of such powers.

The bench further noted the disputed questions of fact, including issues with the 'Authority Letter's execution, the complainant's status, and the lack of bank certification for the related documents. The bench determined that these matters required trial and adjudication by the Trial Court, not by them, particularly since the summoning order had already been issued by the MM.

The bench expressed the opinion that if it were to address the mentioned issues, it would essentially be conducting a mini trial, which, according to established legal principles and considering the circumstances in this case, was not permissible under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. This is especially the case when the trial before the MM was already in progress.

“This Court cannot substitute or carry out the functions of the learned Trial Court. In any event, considering that the proceedings before the learned MM are at a very nascent stage, it would be improper for this Court to enter the merits of the Complaint Case,” said the bench.

The bench also noted that the petitioner had not filed a review petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. and had chosen to directly approach the Court through the present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Interestingly, two other co-accused individuals had previously filed review petitions under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. before approaching the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner had not established a sufficient case to warrant the exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.