Gaurav Mittal Vs State NCT Delhi Through Sho & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court considered a petition filed by Gaurav Mittal under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), challenging the order dated 18.01.2023 by which the Metropolitan Magistrate had dismissed the complainant’s application under section 219 read with section 322 Cr.P.C. The petitioner/accused was facing proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in CC No. 7640/2020 filed by respondent No. 2/complainant.
The challenge raised two principal grounds. First, it was contended that the criminal complaint combined alleged offences relating to the return of 30 different cheques in the same complaint, which was impermissible in view of section 219 Cr.P.C. Second, because the cheques ranged from Rs. 1894/- to Rs. 5 lacs, the petitioner argued that combining all 30 dishonour allegations in one complaint made it impossible for him to seek compounding of the offences under section 320 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner further submitted that, as narrated in the complaint, the 30 cheques had been issued towards refund of separate deposits made by respondent No. 2. The cheques bore different dates, although they were dishonoured on the same date, and a common notice under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was issued for all 30 cheques. On that basis, counsel argued that each alleged dishonour constituted a separate offence and that, even if the offences were committed on the same date, not more than three such offences could be tried by way of a single complaint under section 219 Cr.P.C. Counsel fairly pointed out that there were decisions both for and against the proposition.
At the prima-facie stage, the High Court issued notice. The State appeared and submitted that, although the matter arose from a private complaint, it wished to make submissions considering the question of law involved. The Court directed the State to file written submissions within six weeks and directed that notice be served upon respondent No. 2.
The Court also recorded that the matter was stated to be listed before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.03.2023. In view of the discussion at this stage, the Court directed that further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 7640/2020 before the Metropolitan Magistrate would remain stayed until the next date of hearing before the High Court. The matter was directed to be re-notified on 27th July 2023.
The order is therefore an interlocutory/ad interim order: it does not finally determine whether all 30 alleged cheque dishonours may be proceeded with in one complaint. The substantive question under section 219 Cr.P.C. remained to be considered after notice and submissions, while proceedings in the underlying complaint were stayed in the interim. The source itself expressly records that counsel had identified decisions both for and against the proposition but does not identify those authorities by name.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
By way of the present petition filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner impugns order dated 18.01.2023, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has dismissed the complainant’s application under section 219 read with section 322 Cr.P.C.
2. The petitioner/accused is facing proceedings for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘NI’ Act) in CC No. 7640/2020 filed by respondent No. 2/complainant.
3. Mr. Madhav Khurana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits, that the two principal grounds of challenge to the impugned order are:
3.1 That by way of the criminal complaint filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, respondent No. 2 has combined the alleged offences relating to return of 30 different cheques in the same complaint, which is impermissible in view of section 219 Cr.P.C.;
3.2 That since the cheques ranged from as little as Rs. 1894/- to as much as Rs. 5 lacs, the combining of the allegations of dishonour of all 30 cheques in one and the same complaint, makes it impossible for the petitioner to seek compounding of the offences under section 320 Cr.P.C.
4. Mr. Khurana further submits, that as narrated in paras 2 and 3 of the criminal complaint itself, the 30 cheques in question were issued towards refund of separate deposits made by respondent No. 2; and the cheques bore different dates, except they were dishonoured on the same date and a common notice under section 138 NI Act was issued for all 30 cheques. Counsel argues, that each alleged ‘dishonour’ comprises a separate offence and even if committed on the same date (i.e. within the same year), not more than 03 such offences canbe tried by way of a single complaint in view of section 219 Cr.P.C.
5. Mr. Khurana fairly points-out though, that there are decisions both for and against the proposition.
6. Upon a prima-facie view of the matter, issue notice.
7. Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, learned APP appears on behalf of the State; accept notice; and submits that though otherwise the matter arises from a private complaint, considering the question of law involved in the matter, the State wishes to make submissions in the matter.
8. Let written submissions be filed by the State within 06 weeks.
9. Upon the petitioner taking steps, let notice be sent to respondent No. 2 by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date.
10. Let the notice indicate that reply to the petition be filed within 06 weeks of service; rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within 04 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.
11. The matter is stated to be listed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.03.2023, having been adjourned from today’s date.
12. In view of the above discussion, further proceedings in Complaint Case No. 7640/2020 before the Metropolitan Magistrate shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing in this court.
13. Re-notify on 27th July 2023.
