SachIn Suneja Vs. State and ors.

SachIn Suneja vs State and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Dec 21, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907599

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/907599
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
Decided On: Dec 21, 2010
Case Number: Crl. MC No.3161/2010
Subject: BankingCriminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[L.NARAYANA SWAMY J.] This MFA is filed u/s 173(1) of MV act against the judgment and award dated 16/9/2008 passed w MVC no. 5449/2007 on the file of xvi additional judge, member, MACT, Bangalore, SCCH-14, awarding a Compensation of rs,6,8sv000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from Tifls date of petition till Realization

Key legal issue: BankingCriminal
Acts & sections: Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 482, 263(g); Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SachIn Suneja

Advocate Mr. Maninder Singh, Adv.

Respondent

State and ors.

Advocate Mr. Sunil Sharma, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 482, 263(g); Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138

Excerpt

[l.narayana swamy j.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act against the judgment and award dated 16/9/2008 passed w mvc no. 5449/2007 on the file of xvi additional judge, member, mact, bangalore, scch-14, awarding a compensation of rs,6,8sv000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from tifls date of petition till realization.....30th november 2009. thus, the notice was absolutely within the period of limitation and he listed the case for p.e.3. where a person makes an application under section 263(g) disclosing his defence, he can ask the trial court to decide his application on merits after making a statement that he does not want to cross examine the witness and does not want to produce defence, evidence already on record given by complainant be considered to decide the case. where an accused goes for recalling the witnesses on the basis of his defence, he cannot simultaneously take a plea that the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of his defence. only where accused makes a statement that he has not to examine any witness and he was prepared to argue the case on the basis of documents on record, the trial court has to finally dispose of the complaint under section 138 of ni act in a summarily manner by recording this statement of the accused. where an accused does not make a statement about his accepting the facts and argue the matter only on the basis of documents, he cannot seek dismissal of the complaint on the basis of his defence.4. i find no merits in this petition. the petition is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.

Full Judgment

1. By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C the petitioner has assailed an order dated 3rd September 2010 whereby an application under Section 263(g) Cr.P.C of the petitioner was dismissed He has also sought quashing of the criminal complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act made by the complainant.

2. After summoning order of learned MM, the petitioner on a complaint of the respondent/ complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque, the petitioner made an application under Section 263(g) of Cr.P.C stating therein that the payment of the cheque was stopped by him and it was not dishonoured on account of insufficiency of funds. The cheques in question were issued as a security and were misused by the complainant. The other defence taken was that the notice issued by the complainant was beyond the period of limitation. The learned trial court considered the application of the petitioner and found that the evidence in the case was going on and the matter was listed for cross examination of witnesses. As far as serving of legal notice within the statutory period was concerned, the trial court observed that the debit advice was dated 31st October 2009 and the legal notice was served on 30th November 2009. Thus, the notice was absolutely within the period of limitation and he listed the case for P.E.

3. Where a person makes an application under Section 263(g) disclosing his defence, he can ask the trial court to decide his application on merits after making a statement that he does not want to cross examine the witness and does not want to produce defence, evidence already on record given by complainant be considered to decide the case. Where an accused goes for recalling the witnesses on the basis of his defence, he cannot simultaneously take a plea that the complaint should be dismissed on the basis of his defence. Only where accused makes a statement that he has not to examine any witness and he was prepared to argue the case on the basis of documents on record, the trial court has to finally dispose of the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act in a summarily manner by recording this statement of the accused. Where an accused does not make a statement about his accepting the facts and argue the matter only on the basis of documents, he cannot seek dismissal of the complaint on the basis of his defence.

4. I find no merits in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed with no orders to costs.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2010 Same Parties SachIn Suneja vs State and ors. Same Subject BankingCriminal Same Judge Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J. Acts & Sections Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Sections 482, 263(g); Neg...

BankingCriminal