Full Judgment
Criminal Misc.
not M-34909 of 2012 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc.
not M-34909 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision:
17. 01.2013 Mahesh Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Citi Financial Consumer Services Finance India,Ltd.......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Arvind Singh,Advocate for the petitioner.
**** SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 16.10.2012 (Annexue P4) whereby application moved by the petitioner to summon the witness to prove the title report/search report with regard to house in dispute by the petitioner was dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves dismissal.
Petitioner is facing trial qua the commission of offence Criminal Misc.
not M-34909 of 2012 (O&M) 2 punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 with regard to dishonour of cheque dated 5.6.2009 in the sum of `11827/-.
not the case is listed for defence evidence of the petitioner.
Petitioner moved an application (Annexure P2) for permission to examine a witness to prove the title report/search report with regard to the house in question purchased by the petitioner.
The trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner has observed as under:- “ During examination of CW1 Rohin Kataria, home loan agreement Ex.C7 has been placed on record.
No such condition has been pointed out by the defence side that it was the duty of the complainant-company to verify the title of the vendor.
Logically, it is the duty of the vendee/accused to verify the title of the vendor.
Even, if it is proved that there was defect in the title of the vendor, then it is of no help of the accused because in the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act what is to be proved that drawer issued the cheque to discharge the liability.
The fact of taking of loan has been admitted by the accused.
Moreover, in the application, it is not mentioned that what was the defect in the title of the vendor.
No collusion has been attributed between the complainant and the vendor.
So, in these circumstances, this court is of the view that no case is made out for summoning the title report/search report for the just decision of the case and accordingly the application is dismissed.'' The reasons given by the trial Court, while dismissing the Criminal Misc.
not M-34909 of 2012 (O&M) 3 application are sound reasons.
Petitioner is facing criminal proceedings with regard to dishonour of cheque in question.
The tittle report/search report with regard to the house purchased by the petitioner would not be necessary for the just decision of the case.
The said report will not have any bearing on the decision of the case.
Hence, no ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA) January 17, 2013 JUDGE arya Criminal Misc.
not M-34909 of 2012 (O&M) 4 Criminal Misc.
not M-34909 of 2012 (O&M) 5