BHARAT EXPORT OVERSEAS Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was lodged against the petitioner only to extort money. It is further submitted that there are contradictions in the statements of CW-1, i.e., the respondent no.2 (herein). It is further submitted that DW-1, namely, Mahinder Nath Chandok, who is stated to be the agent of CW-1, accepted the payment on behalf of the respondent no. 2 (herein). It is further submitted that the petitioner has already paid the loan amount and, in this regard, the promissory note dtd. 17/10/2011 signed by the respondent no. 2 himself, which mentions 'received payment with interest' at the back of note, acknowledging the payment of Rs.10,00,000.00 has been paid by the petitioners.

(3.) In the instant case, for proper adjudication, it is necessary to look into to the orders dtd. 16/1/2023 and 28/3/2023.