HANSRAJ BANSAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner as complainant filed criminal complaints under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the respondents no. 2 being accused, bearing no 269/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 228/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad on basis of cheque bearing no.188868 dtd. 5/4/2009 amounting to Rs.11,71,600.00 drawn on ICICI Bank which returned unpaid due to Payment Stopped by Drawer; 346/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 229/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad on basis of cheque bearing no 176236 dtd. 15/3/2009 amounting to Rs.11,10,000.00 drawn on ICICI Bank which returned unpaid due to Payment Stopped by Drawer; 265/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 230/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Farooq @ Bablu on basis of cheque bearing no.911692 dtd. 24/6/2012 amounting to Rs.5,00,000.00 drawn on Punjab National Bank which returned unpaid due to Signature of the Drawer was not according to Mandate; 298/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 233/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmed on basis of cheque bearing no 078864 dtd. 5/4/2009 amounting to Rs.3,32,500.00 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank which returned unpaid due to Insufficiency of Funds; 725/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 234/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Arshad Ahmedon basis of cheque bearing no 791221 dated 10.06.2011amounting to Rs.2,00,000.00 drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd. which returned unpaid due to Want of sufficiency of Funds; 948/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 235/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Farooq @ Babluon basis of cheque bearing no.911693 dtd. 28/6/2013 amounting to Rs.3,00,000.00drawn on Punjab National Bank which returned unpaid due to Signature of the Drawer Differs; 227/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 236/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmed on basis of cheque bearing no.078860 dtd. 21/2/2009 amounting to Rs.9,60,000.00 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank which returned unpaid due to Insufficiency of Funds;478/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 237/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Shis Pal Tomar on basis of cheque bearing no.636617 dtd. 17/3/2009 amounting to Rs.2,50,000.00 drawn on HDFC which returned unpaid due to Insufficiency of Funds; 464/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 238/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad on basis of cheque bearing no 188868 dtd. 5/4/2009 amounting to Rs.11,71,600.00 drawn on ICICI Bank which returned unpaid due to Payment Stopped by Drawer and 401/13 (subject matter of Crl. Rev. Petition bearing no 239/2017) titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sarfaraz Ahmed on basis of cheque bearing no.078861 dtd. 20/3/2009 amounting to Rs.14,90,000.00 drawn on Standard Chartered Bank which returned unpaid due to Insufficient Fund. The petitioner also filed other complaints under Sec. 138 of the Act which are bearing no.387/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sabir Ali; 100/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Komal Parshad; 354/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sher Pal Nagar; 585/13 titled asHansraj Bansal V Vinod Kumar; 456/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Salim @ Guddu and bearing no.022/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Manju Gupta. The respondents no 2 and other accused did not pay the cheque amounts despite legal notice. Hence the petitioner filed present complaints. The petitioner led pre-summoning evidence in all complaints and thereafter cognizance was taken against the respondents in all complaints for offence punishable under Sec. 138 of the Act. Notice under Sec. 251 Cr. P.C. was stated to be given to the respondents no 2 to which they pleaded not guilty and filed applications under Sec. 145(2) of the Act which were stated to be replied by the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner in complaint bearing no 346/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad vide proceedings dtd. 4/9/2013 conducted by the court of Sh. Sunil Gupta, MM, North East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi was examined under Sec. 165 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The petitioner in examination under Sec. 165 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stated that he has filed around 15-20 complaints under Sec. 138 of the Act against 12 persons. He had given money to the respondents Sarfaraz and Ahad for their chit funds activities and money was given to rest of the respondents due to friendly relations. Thereafter a show cause notice was also ordered to be issued to the petitioner to explain as to whether he is engaged in business of money lending and if he is so engaged, whether he has any statutory licence for doing money lending business. All the complaints pertaining to the petitioner as complainant were ordered to be placed on same day. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice wherein the petitioner stated that he is not engaged in business of money lending.

(3.) The court of Sh. Sunil Gupta, MM, North East, Karkardooma Courts , Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') vide order dated 15.07.20I5 dismissed complaints bearing no 269/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad , 464/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdul Ahad, 346/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Abdud Ahad, 478/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Shish Pal Tomar, 948/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Faruq @ Babloo,387/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Sabir Ali,265/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Faruq @ Babloo,100/13titled as Hansraj Bansal V Komal Parsad and 725/13 titled as Hansraj Bansal V Arshad Ahmad.