Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1276 (RAJ)

Dinesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Bhagwat Swaroop Sharma v. Savitri Devi W/o Shri Kishori Lal

2024-09-19

SAMEER JAIN

body2024
ORDER : 1. The instant petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 03.10.2023 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Alwar, in Criminal Appeal No. 23/2019 titled as Dinesh Vs. Savitri whereby, the application filed by the petitioner under Section 391 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 311 Cr.P.C. and Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act was dismissed. 2. In a nutshell, the factual narrative of the instant matter is that the complainant filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) on 10.01.2011, before the learned Trial Court against the petitioner. Therein, it was stated that the complainant had given Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Only) to the petitioner collateral to a cheque (dated 06.12.2010) of the same amount. Howsoever, the said cheque got dishonored and the complainant, received a letter dated 11.12.2010 with a remark “account closed.” Aggrieved of the aforementioned the complainant after serving a legal notice, filed a complaint registered as Criminal Complaint No. 718/2015, before the Addl. Civil Judge (S.D.) and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Alwar (Annexure-1). It is pertinent to note that the complainant and the petitioner were in a cordial relation from past 10-15 years. 3. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that whilst taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainant, learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.02.2019 convicted the accused-petitioner (Annexure-2). It is pertinent to note that the complainant and the petitioner were in a cordial relation from past 10-15 years. 3. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that whilst taking cognizance of the complaint filed by the complainant, learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.02.2019 convicted the accused-petitioner (Annexure-2). The relevant extract from the order dated 11.02.2019 is reproduced herein-below: ^^vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 138 ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds varxZr vkjksfir vijk/k dks lkfcr djus ds fy;s fuEufyf[kr fcUnq lkfcr fd;k tkuk vko';d gS & vfHk;qDr }kjk ifjoknh dks oS| _.k ;k nkf;Ro ds mUekspu gsrq fookfnr pSd dk fn;k tkuk] pSd dk cSad }kjk /kkjk 138 ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds Áko/kkuksa ds rgr vuknfjr gksuk] ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds Áko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDr dks dkuwuh uksfVl leqfpr irs ij fn;k tkuk] uksfVl ÁkIr gksus ds i'pkr fofgr le;kof/k esa vfHk;qDr }kjk Hkqxrku djus esa vlQy jguk rFkk fofgr le;kof/k esa U;k;ky; ds le{k ifjokn is'k fd;k tkukA U;k;ky; ds fouez erkuqlkj vfHk;qDr }kjk ifjokfn;k dks m/kkj yh x;h jkf'k dh vnk;xh ckcr fookfnr pSd la[;k 855835 fnukafdr 06-12-2010 jkf'k 4]00]000@& :i;s ¼v{kjs pkj yk[k :i;s½ dk fn;k Fkk tks Án'kZ ih 1 gSA ifjokfn;k }kjk ÁLrqr cSad eseksj.Me Án'kZ ih 2 ls ;g rF; HkyhHkkafr Áekf.kr gksrk gS fd ifjokjfn;k }kjk fookfnr pSd dks Hkqxrku gsrq cSad esa ÁLrqr djus ij ^^vdkm.V DyksTM** ds vadu ds lkFk cSad }kjk fookfnr pSd vuknfjr fd;k x;k gSA i=koyh ij ÁLrqr ifjokfn;k }kjk vfHk;qDr dks Ásf"kr fof/kd uksfVl Án'kZ ih 3] jlhn Mkd[kkuk Án'kZ ih 4 ,oe vly uksfVl Án'kZ ih 5 ds }kjk vfHk;qDr ds lgh irs ij dkuwuh uksfVl fn;k tkuk Áekf.kr gksrk gS rFkk vfHk;qDr }kjk uksfVl ÁkIr gksus ds 15 fnol ds Hkhrj ifjokfn;k dks fdlh Ádkj dk Hkqxrku ugha fd;k x;k ftlds i'pkr ifjokfn;k dks okn gsrqd ÁkIr gks x;k rFkk ifjokfn;k }kjk mDr ifjokn U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k x;kA vfHk;qDr vius fo:) yh x;h mi/kkj.kk fd mlus fookfnr pSd fof/kr% ÁorZuh; _.k ;k nkf;Ro ds iw.kZr% ;k Hkkxr% mUekspu ds fy;s ifjokfn;k dks fn;k Fkk] dk [kaMu djus esa loZFkk vlQy jgk gSA vr% mijksDr leLr foospu ,oe Ádj.k ds rF;ksa ,oe ifjokfn;k }kjk ÁLrqr fd;s x;s ekSf[kd ,oe nLrkosth lk{; ls vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 138 ijØkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dk ;qfDr;qDr lansg dh lhek ls ijs lkfcr djus esa ifjokfn;k lQy jgh gSA vr% vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 138 ,uŒvkbZŒ ,DV ds vijk/k ds fy;s nks"kfl) ?kksf"kr fd;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr Árhr gksrk gSA vkns'k vr% vfHk;qDr fnus'k pan 'kekZ iq= iafMr Jh Hkxor Lo:i 'kekZ tkfr czkg~e.k fuoklh esgrkc flag dk ukSgjk] vyoj dks /kkjk 138 ,uŒvkbZŒ ,DV ds vijk/k esa nks"kfl) ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA** 4. Further, it was contended that being aggrieved of the said order an appeal was preferred by the accused-petitioner before the District and Sessions Judge, Alwar on 25.02.2019. Subsequently, and application dated 25.04.2023 was filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 391 read with Section 91 and 311 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, before the Addl. Sessions Judge No. 3, Alwar (Annexure-4). Howsoever, the said application was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2023 (Annexure-6). 5. It was further contended that the order impugned was passed in a perfunctory manner, without considering the vital facts of the instant matter. Moreover, certain documents which were to be considered before adjudication of the instant matter were not taken on record. Hence, the said action of the learned Trial Court caused great prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents had vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and had submitted that the order dated 03.10.2023, was passed after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the instant matter. Moreover, even for not taking the said additional documents on record a justified reasoning was noted in the said order. Lastly, learned counsel had submitted that the accused-petitioner was granted efficacious audience prior to passing of the said order and hence, at this juncture, the accused petitioner cannot raise a contention that the said order was passed in a perfunctory manner. 7. Heard and considered. 8. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the arguments averred by the learned counsel for both the parties, this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the instant petition for the reasons noted herein below: 8.1 That the instant dispute pertains to Section 138 of NI Act, and the same was subjudice before the Trial Court from a prolonged period. It is undisputed that the cause of action pertains to the year 2010, for which the foremost complaint was made in the year 2015. Appeal assailing the said order was preferred in the year 2019, which was decided vide order dated 03.10.2023. It is undisputed that the cause of action pertains to the year 2010, for which the foremost complaint was made in the year 2015. Appeal assailing the said order was preferred in the year 2019, which was decided vide order dated 03.10.2023. Considering the aforementioned timeline this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Re: Expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2/2020 wherein, it is categorically stated that gargantuan pendency of the Negotiable Instruments matters create an adverse effect on the trial of other criminal matters. Therefore, the same ought to be concluded within a stipulated period. 8.2 That it is a settled position of law that vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt i.e. law aids only those who are vigilant about their rights and not those who sleep over their rights. In the matter in hand, it prima facie appears that the accused-petitioner has time and again made attempts to cause unwarranted delay in disposal of the instant dispute, moreover, was not vigilant and prompt to contest the matter. 8.3 That the order dated 03.10.2023 categorically states that the accused-petitioner was granted several opportunities to bring on record the relevant documents. Nevertheless, the accused-petitioner failed to place on record any substantial documents in support of his contentions qua the fact that the complainant was managing/running a committee. Moreover, the said order has explicitly acknowledged every vital aspect of the instant matter, and is passed after due application of mind. Nevertheless, the accused-petitioner failed to place on record any substantial documents in support of his contentions qua the fact that the complainant was managing/running a committee. Moreover, the said order has explicitly acknowledged every vital aspect of the instant matter, and is passed after due application of mind. The relevant extract from the order dated 03.10.2023 is reproduced herein-below: ^^fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; dh i=koyh dk voyksdu djus ij ÁdV gksrk gS fd fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh ÁkFkZuk ij mls Áfrj{kk lk{; ÁLrqr fd;s tkus gsrq i;kZIr volj fn;k x;kA ftlesa vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ,d xokg ds c;ku Hkh fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ys[kc) djk;s x;sA vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk ifjokfn;k }kjk lapkfyr rFkkdfFkr desVh ls lacaf/kr nLrkostkr dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ÁLrqr D;ksa ugha fd;k tk ldk bldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k gLrxr ÁkFkZuk i= esa ugha fn;k x;k gSA vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ifjokfn;k@jsLiksMsaV ls rFkkdfFkr desVh ds lapkyu ls lacaf/kr jftLVj bR;kfn dks ryc fd;s tkus dh ÁkFkZuk D;ksa ugha dh x;h bldk Hkh dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ugha fn;k x;k gSA vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls gLrxr ÁkFkZuk i= ds ek/;e ls nLrkostkr dh QksVksÁfr;ksa dks fjdkWMZ ij fy;s tkus dh ÁkFkZuk dh x;h gSA ijUrq mDr nLrkostkr ds voyksdu ls nLrkostkr dk gLrxr Ádj.k ds U;k;laxr fofu'p; gsrq lqlaxr gksuk ÁdV ugha gksrk gSA mDr nLrkostkr ij dksbZ fnukad bR;kfn Hkh vafdr ugha gS ftlls fd mDr nLrkostkr gLrxr Ádj.k ds laO;ogkj ls lacaf/kr gksuk ÁdV gksrk gksA ,slh n'kk esa vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ÁLrqr ÁkFkZuk i= leqfpr vk/kkj ij ÁLrqr fd;k tkuk ÁdV ugha gksrk gSA ÁkFkZuk i= ek= foyac dkfjr djus ds mn~ns'; ls ÁLrqr fd;k tkuk ÁdV gksrk gSA vr% ÁkFkhZ@vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls ÁLrqr ÁkFkZuk i= varxZr /kkjk 391 lifBr /kkjk 91 lifBr /kkjk 311 nŒÁŒlŒ ,oa /kkjk 65 lk{; vf/kfu;e vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** 8.4 That upon considering the ratio encapsulated in Mandvi Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Nimesh B. Thakore, (2010) 3 SCC 83 , it is crystal clear that it is the Magistrate’s discretion to allow evidence on affidavit. Nevertheless, the legislature has provided for the complainant to give his evidence on affidavit but did not provide the same for the accused. 9. Nimesh B. Thakore, (2010) 3 SCC 83 , it is crystal clear that it is the Magistrate’s discretion to allow evidence on affidavit. Nevertheless, the legislature has provided for the complainant to give his evidence on affidavit but did not provide the same for the accused. 9. In summation of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the instant matter and specially taking note of the fact that the instant matter is subjudice before the learned Trial Court from a prolonged period of time i.e. approximately from thirteen years; that the learned Trial Court with due application of mind has passed a well-reasoned/speaking order and that there is no apparent error in the order dated 03.10.2023, this Court is of the view that the order dated 03.10.2023 is sans arbitrariness and illegality. 10. Accordingly, the instant petitions being devoid of any merit are dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupess Ten Thousand Only). Cost to be deposited with Secretary, RALSA of the district Alwar. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.