CRL.M.C./4862/2018 of ANKIT LAMBA & ANR Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

$~15& 16

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.M.C. 4861/2018«& CRL.M.A.32722/2018ANKIT LAMBA & ANR

PetitionersThrough:Mr. Tanveer AhmadMir,Mr. Ravinder Singh, Ms. RaveeshaGuptaand Ms. Stuti Gupta,Advs.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR

.... RespondentsThrough :Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State.Mr. Shashank Rai, Adv. forMr. Navneet Singh, R-2.

+CRL.M.C. 4862/2018 & CRL.M.A.32725/2018

ANKIT LAMBA & ANRPetitionersTlirough :Mr. Tanveer Ahmad Mir,Mr. Ravinder Singh, Ms. RaveeshaGupta and Ms. Stuti Gupta, Advs.versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

RespondentsThrough :Mr. Amit Chadha, APP for the State.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKORDER%14.01.2019

The case set up by respondent no.2 in the complaint under Section138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short "the Act") before the TrialCourt against the petitioner is that he had given til lacs to petitioner as loan

on 19'*^ October,2015. Petitionerpromisedto repay the loan on or before20"^ December, 2015. The petitionerissued four cheques of ^5,00,000/-each and one cheque of ^7,00,000. All these cheques are involvedin thecases. It wasthat allwere returneddishonouredcomplaint alleged chequeson presentationwiththe remarkpaymentstoppedby the drawer.

NoticeunderSection251 Cr.P.C.was framedtheagainst petitionerby

the LearnedMetropolitanMagistrate,Delhi on 04.04.2018.In responsetothe notice,petitionerpleadednot guiltyand claimedtrial. Inhis defence,thedefencein themanner:petitionertook following

"I have taken Rs.27 lacs from the complainant in cashsomewhere around July/August 2015 and returned the sameamount of Rs.27 lacs to the complainant in cash in October2015. The cheque in question were issued to the complainantby me at the time of taking the amount of Rs.27 lacs from thecomplainant.However, complainant did not returned the saidchequ3es to me despite receiving the entire amount in cash."

The petitioner preferred an application under Section 145 (2) of theAct. In the application, the petitioner alleged that the source of income forthe grant of loan of ^27,00,000/- (^17,00,000/- in one case and ?10,00,000/-in another connected case) needs to be ascertained. Moreover the mode andmanner in which the said amount is paid is also to be ascertained from thecomplainant. It was, thus, contended that respondent no.2 was required tobe cross-examinedon these aspects.

This application was disposed of on 07.06.2018.

The TrialCourt held that accusedhad admittedthat he had taken

?27,00,000/- from the complainant. His defence was that he had repaid theloan. Accordingly,no groundwas madeout for cross-examiningthecomplainant on the aspect of source as well as mode and manner in whichthe loan amount was paid by the complainant.

ThepetitionerpreferredrevisionpetitionbeforethelearnedAdditionalSessionsJudge,whichhas beendismissedvide the orderimpuged in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

That is how petitioner is before this court.

I do not find any perversity in the impugned order, inasmuch as, nomiscarriageofjusticehas resultedto the petitioner. It has not been disputedby the petitioner that complainant had advanced the loan. The plea taken bythe petitioner in his defence is that the loan amount was duly paid by him.Thus, in my view trial court has rightly held that source, mode and themanner of payment of advancing amount of loan by the complainant wasnot in dispute.

The petitions are dismissed.

/A.K. PATHAK, J.

JANUARY 14,2019