पूरा फैसला डाउनलोड करें
फैसला
M/S S.S. Auto Gallery vs . on 9 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (NI-05), WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Devanshu Sajlan, DJS
Case No. - 21636/2016
In the matter of :-
M/s S.S. AUTO GALLERY
Through its Partner Sh. Balvinder Singh A-684/685, near Goan Wala Chowk, Shivaji Collage Road, New Delhi- 110027
VS.
SH. VANEET SINGH
S/o Sh. Surender Pal Singh H.No. B-107, Janta Colony, Shivaji Vihar, New Delhi
CC No.21636-2016 M/s S.S. Auto Gallery v. Vaneet Singh
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
1. The present complaint has been filed by M/s. SS Auto Gallery (through its partner Sh. Balvinder Singh) (hereinafter "complainant") against Sh. Vaneet Singh (hereinafter "accused") under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "NI Act").
2. The substance of allegations, as contained in the complaint, are as follows:
(a) Balvinder Singh, partner of M/s SS Auto Gallery (complainant), had cordial relations with the accused. Pursuant to the said cordial relations, Balvinder Singh, partner of M/s SS Auto Gallery (complainant), granted a friendly loan of Rs. 21,00,000 to the accused on 15.03.2016 for two months for some urgent need of the accused.
(b) In discharge of the aforesaid legal liability, the accused issued two cheques of Rs. 9,00,000 dated 28.05.2016 and another cheque of Rs. 12,00,000 dated 30.05.2016 in favour of the complainant firm. When the complainant presented the said cheques, the bank returned it unpaid on 01.06.2016 as no balance was available in the account. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 24.06.2016 but the accused allegedly failed to pay the cheque amount and therefore, the complainant filed the present complaint.
3. Accused's stance, on the contrary, is that he had taken a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-1 fro
At the stage of recording of his defense under section 251 CrPC, the accus had taken a loan of Rs. 3,00,000 from the complainant. However, at the stage of record of the accused u/s 313 CrPC and in his defense evidence, the accused stated that he h Rs. 5,00,000 from the complainant.
CC No.21636-2016 M/s S.S. Auto Gallery v. Vaneet Singh 3 of Sh. Sachin Bahl (the other partner of the complainant firm) and that he had given three blank signed cheques as security cheques which have been misused by the complainant. He has further submitted that he has already repaid Rs. 5,00,000 to Sh. Sachin Bahl and hence, he does not owe any amount to the complainant. The accused has denied having taken a loan of Rs. 21,00,000 from the complainant.
B. PRE-SUMMONING EVIDENCE & NOTICE
4. Pre-summoning evidence was led by the complainant and on finding a prima facie case, the accused was summoned to face trial vide order dated 22.08.2016. On appearance, the accused was served with the notice of accusation under Section 251, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter "CrPC") on 04.08.2018, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. While the accused admitted his signature on the cheque in question, he stated that rest of the particulars were not filled by him. Further, the following plea of defence was taken by the accused at thi stage:
I do not plead guilty and I have defence to make. The present cheques in question bear my signatures but I have not filled up the other particulars i the cheques. I had issued the cheques in question to one Sh. Sachin for security purpose as I had taken a loan of Rs. 3 lacs from him in October- November 2014. I handed over the same amount in cash to Sh. Sachin in 2015 alongwith 10% interest. I do not know the complainant company. I have not received the legal notice from the complainant company. I asked my cheque back from Sh. Sachin but he did not return the same. The complainant company has filed a false and fabricated complain against me. I do not owe liability towards the complainant qua the cheques in question. I want to lead defence evidence.
पूरा फैसला डाउनलोड करें
