Charanjit Singh v. State & ORS

$~33 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 311/2017 CHARANJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr. Manmeet Singh Maini, Adv.

versus STATE & ORS ..... Respondent Represented by:

Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI Pawan Kumar PS Maurya Enclave.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

O R D E R

% 24.01.2017 Crl.M.A. 1380/2017 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 311/2017 1.

A complaint was filed by the petitioner seeking directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. which was dismissed vide order dated 3rd September, 2016. The challenge in the revision petition was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2016, hence the present petition. 2.

The allegations in the complaint were that after receiving notice from the Court in complaint case No.288/1/2016 to appear in the Court, the petitioner came to know that accused persons have stolen the cheque and in respect thereof false complaint had been filed. The petitioner had never issued cheque to the accused persons. The allegations of threat for payment of the amount was also levelled.

3.

The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 3rd September, CRL.M.C. 311/2017

2016 relying upon the decision of this Court in M/s. Skipper Bewerages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State reported as 2001 VI AD (Delhi) 625 held that the evidence was well within the reach of the petitioner and no Police investigation was required nor anything was to be recovered at the instance of the accused. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate also relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Gulab Chand Upadhaya Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2002 Crl.L.J. 2907. It was thus held that no case was made for referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the matter was listed for the complainant's evidence at the pre-summoning stage. Even vide the impugned order dated 2nd November, 2016 the learned Special Judge dismissing the revision petition noted that no Police investigation was required and petitioner could prove his allegations by leading the evidence in Court.

4.

Admittedly the above-noted complaint was filed by the petitioner after receiving a notice in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed against him. The cheque in question, theft of which is alleged by the petitioner has already been filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Thus, no recovery is required to be made from the alleged accused. The alleged case property already being in Court possession; how the theft took place was within the knowledge of the petitioner, which can be proved by leading evidence. 5.

Finding no infirmity in the two orders, the petition is dismissed. MUKTA GUPTA, J.

JANUARY 24, 2017 /'ga'

CRL.M.C. 311/2017