INDERJEET SINGH MAGGON Vs. HARASH SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By this petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of Cr. P.C. the petitioner is seeking an order thereby challenging the impugned order dated 4.7.2016, whereby learned Metropolitan Magistrate - 01, N. I. Distt. West, Tis Hazari, Delhi, vide which the application under Sec. 311 of Crimial P.C. filed by the respondent was allowed.

(2.) In nutshell, the present dispute is relating to the bouncing of cheques given by the petitioner to the respondent herein in lieu of friendly loan of Rs. 18 lacs. Proceedings under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were conducted before the trial Court. Apart from the aforesaid case for recovery of sum of Rs. 18 lacs, another complaint under Sec. 138 of NI Act is also pending against the petitioner, which was filed by one Shri Yogender Verma for recovery of Rs. 19.5 lacs. The respondent in the present case has got the copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner herein to Shri Yogender Verma admitting the liability towards the respondent and his wife. Though the said Yogender Verma has also filed a complaint under Sec. 138 of NI Act against the petitioner herein, but the Respondent in the present petition, filed an application under Sec. 311 of Crimial P.C. for placing the copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner to the respondent on record. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 4.7.2016 allowed the application of the respondent and that's why the petitioner has preferred the instant petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has filed the application under Sec. 311 of Crimial P.C. for placing the copy of undertaking on the record of his case just to delay the trial. Besides this, it is contended that the complaint under Sec. 138 of NI Act filed by the wife of the respondent herein has already been dismissed by the trial Court. It is further contended that the respondent has already admitted during his cross-examination that no acknowledgement was given by the petitioner in writing against the alleged loan of Rs. 18 lacs. Moreover, the respondent has never intimated in the legal notice sent to him and filing the copy of undertaking on record is just a tactics to fill up the lacunae in the complaint under Sec. 138 of NI Act filed by the respondent. It is further contended that there is a specific statement of the respondent in the case that neither in the case of respondent nor in the case of wife of respondent, there was any acknowledgement of loan made by the petitioner either in writing or otherwise. Therefore, it is a settled proposition of law that the admissions made by the party need not to be proved.