RAGHUVINDER SINGH Vs. RAJIV CHADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide this petition under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks setting aside of order dtd. 3/2/2022, passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act), Central-02, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Complaint Case bearing CIS No. 519453/16, titled 'Rajiv Chadha vs. Raghuvinder Singh' whereby, the petitioner's application u/S. 311 of Cr.PC was dismissed.

(2.) It is submitted by the petitioner that the respondent had filed a complaint case against him under Sec. 138, The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) regarding dishonour of cheque bearing no. 998466 dtd. 24/5/2014 for an amount of Rs. 1,92,21,836.00 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Saket Branch, New Delhi, on account of discharge of his existing liability. The petitioner was summoned and had appeared in the said complaint case on 1/2/2017. Notice was framed under Sec. 251 Cr.PC against him, to which he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, he had filed an application under Sec. 145(2) of the N.I. Act denying the liability, and had disclosed his plea of defence that he and the respondent were partners in one future realtor company and during the period 2006-2009, they jointly did the business along with another partner Manish Jain; and his cheque books were in the possession of the respondent. The respondent had taken out one signed cheque leaflet and had fraudulently misused the same in 2014. The contents filled in the same were not in his handwriting. The petitioner had no liability to pay the cheque amount. Petitioner had sought permission to cross examine the respondent. Vide order dtd. 27/2/2018 the application of the petitioner under Sec. 145(2) of the N.I. Act was allowed and the petitioner was permitted to cross-examine the respondent and the matter was adjourned for the respondents' cross examination to 30/6/2018; on 30/6/2018, his earlier counsel was out of station and therefore, could not appear. On the first date itself, the petitioner's right to cross-examine the respondent and the complainant's evidence was closed.

(3.) On the other hand, the respondent vide his reply has submitted that in the settlement/MOU dtd. 13/8/2019, the petitioner has specifically admitted that he took a loan of Rs. 35,00,000/- from the respondent/ complainant. He has further admitted about the agreement and extension agreement dtd. 3/6/2008, issuance of the cheque in question and also the pendency of the proceedings u/S. 11 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner has even admitted his liability and agreed to pay the settlement amount of Rs. 1crore to the respondent/ complainant. Pursuant to settlement, the petitioner even paid Rs. 8 lakhs. The petitioner having admitted his liability towards the cheque in question, the question of cross examination of the complainant does not arise. The Ld. Magistrate, therefore, rightly dismissed the petitioner's application u/S. 311 Cr P. C.