SUBHASH CHAND BARJATYA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Counsel for the parties agree that this matter can be disposed of at the first instance itself. The learned Counsel forthe respondent appears on advance notice and says that this matter could be disposed of on the first hearing without issuance of a formal notice or any reply being filed on behalf of the respondent.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2006 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the petitioner's applications under Sections 91 and 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 were rejected. The application under Section 91 was for the summoning of the Cheque Returning Register for the month of March, 1999 from the Syndicate Bank, Dhaula Kuan. The application under Section 311, Cr.P.C. was for the purpose of recalling the complainant (CW1) Rita Saim for further cross-examination.

(3.) The brief facts which gave rise to the said applications and, ultimately, the impugned order dated 25.3.2006 pertain to the complaint filed by the said complainant (Rita Saim) with regard to the alleged dishonour of cheque No. 371055 dated 1.1.1999 for Rs. 15 lacs which was issued by the petitioner in favour of the complainant. The cheque was deposited by the complainant on 11 /12.3.1999 with its bankers for realisation. On 17.3.1999, the Syndicate Bank is said to have issued a Debit Slip in favour of the complainant indicating the return of the said cheque for the reason 'Stop Payment'. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued on behalf of the complainant on 25.3.1999 which was posted on 6.4.1999. Since the amount had remained unpaid, the complaint was filed and pre-summoning evidence was led. The complainant in her pre-summoning evidence deposed with regard to the issuance of the debit slip as well as the notice issued on her behalf on 25.3.1999, but posted on 6.4.1999, but did not indicate as to when she received information from the bank. Although, in the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that she was informed by virtue of the said debit slip issued on 17.3.1999, she had not indicated as to when the debit slip was handed over to her by the bank. The notice of 25.3.1999 also does not disclose as to when the debit slip was handed over to the complainant by the bank. It is in this background that the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the pre-summoning stage although it was indicated that the petitioner was informed by virtue of the debit slip issued on 17.3.1999 it was not disclosed by the complainant as to when she actually received the debit slip.