RAJNI DHINGRA Vs. SANJEEV CHUGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition, petitioners has prayed for quashing order dtd. 4/9/2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram, whereby an application filed by him for examining handwriting expert in complaint No.CIS 4735/2017 dtd. 5/4/2017 under Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner is accused in aforesaid complaint case pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Gurugram. Petitioner and one Mrs. Ekta Dhingra lend ? 1,50,00,000/- and 2,00,00,000/- for investment purposes, from the respondent - complainant and promised to repay the amount installments alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. Complainant advanced the amount of? 1,50,00,000 to the petitioner in five instalments vide five cheques in the month of February 2014 which werecredited to the bank account of petitioner. Petitioner paid interest @ 24% only till 31/3/2014. The petitioner requested the complainant to receive part payment of ? 50 lac and for that purpose, petitioner gave two cheques favouring the complainant, bearing Nos.000049 dtd. 7/6/2014 and 000007 dtd. 7/8/2014 for ? 25 lac each, drawing on Andhra Bank, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, which were honoured and credited to the bank account of complainant. Complainant alleged that petitioner paid interest only at the rate of 15% per annum till March 31, 2016 and paid 5 lac vide RTGS on August 05, 2016 towards part payment of interest till June 2016 whereafter he stopped paying interest altogether. Complainant insisted the petitioner for repayment whereupon, petitioner gave two cheques favouring the complainant bearing Nos.000032 and 000033 dtd. 6/2/2017 for ? 50 lac each, drawn on Andhra Bank, Greater Kailash, New Delhi, however, on presentation in the bank, they had been dishonoured and returned unpaid by the bank with the remarks 'Payment Stopped by the Drawer'. Complainant served legal notice upon the petitioner. Despite receipt of legal notice, petitioner did not pay any amount to the complainant despite expiry of a period of more than 15 days from the date of receipt of said legal notice and hence, complaint under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. After closure of evidence of complainant, statement of petitioner was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and the case was posted for leading defence evidence.

(3.) The petitioner had filed two applications viz. one under Sec. 315 Cr.P.C. and the other under Sec. 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to examine and summon the handwriting expert in her defence. Though application under Sec. 315 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the trial courtbut application for summoning/examining handwriting expert was dismissed vide the impugned order which has been challenged through the present petition.