GEETA SINGH Vs. PRADEEP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the petitioner against the impugned order and judgment dtd. 13/9/2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter ASJ) in Criminal Revision Petition No. 1352017.

(2.) The petitioner instituted Complaint Case No. 5426762016 under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments' Act, 1881 (hereinafter NI Act) against the respondent before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate alleging that the respondent had taken a loan from the petitioner for a sum of Rs.99,00,000.00 and for its repayment he submitted seven post-dated cheques amounting to Rs.80,00,000.00, including the cheque bearing no. 000118, in pursuance of which the proceedings were initiated by petitioner against the respondent, since the cheque was dishonoured with the remarks Insufficient Funds when presented. Summoning order was passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dtd. 11/7/2016. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the respondent approached the learned ASJ invoking its revisional jurisdiction impugning the order. Vide order dtd. 13/9/2019, the learned ASJ allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of summoning as well as the application under Sec. 216 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner against the respondent for addition if charge under Sec. 420468471120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner is assailing the said Order of the learned ASJ dated 13 th September, 2017.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the learned ASJ has committed an error by presuming the cheque in question was issued on of the accused no.2Company, namely, Shree Krishna Vanaspati Pvt. Ltd., while deciding the revision petition. The respondent avoided the trial initiated against him and the accused company and instead approached the revisional court assailing the summoning order on the sole ground that the company was principally liable being the drawer of the cheque and yet it was not made a party. It is submitted that the respondent was not able to establish the status and role in the accused Company or in what capacity he issued the cheques in question. The question as to who was the drawer of the cheque could only be adjudged at the stage of trial.