Raj Kumar Santoshi Vs Prashant Malik (Delhi High Court)
Summary: The Delhi High Court, in Raj Kumar Santoshi Vs Prashant Malik, considered a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of a summoning order dated 24 August 2021 and subsequent proceedings in a cheque-related complaint pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, North-West Delhi, Rohini. The petitioner also challenged costs imposed by the trial court through orders dated 31 January 2023 and 6 March 2023. The matter was heard by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, who passed the order on 14 March 2024.
The petitioner submitted that the cheques forming the subject matter of the complaint were issued as security cheques. On that basis, he sought interference with the summoning order and the continuation of the complaint proceedings. The petitioner further contended that the trial court had repeatedly imposed costs notwithstanding his inability to appear because he had undergone surgery. His counsel pointed out that the High Court itself had previously granted exemption from personal appearance after considering his medical condition.
The principal question before the High Court was whether the defence that the cheques had been issued merely as security could justify quashing the proceedings at the stage of a petition under Section 482 CrPC. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunil Todi Vs State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174, which recognised that the defence concerning issuance of security cheques must be examined during trial on the basis of evidence.
The Court observed that the underlying complaint was already fixed for final arguments. Considering the settled legal position and the advanced stage of the proceedings, it found no sufficient ground to entertain the petition for quashing. Accordingly, the prayer for interference with the summoning order and subsequent complaint proceedings was rejected.
However, the High Court separately examined the issue of costs imposed on account of the petitioner’s non-appearance. Taking into consideration the petitioner’s ailment and his inability to attend the proceedings, the Court granted limited relief by setting aside the costs of Rs.25,000 imposed by the trial court. The petition and pending application were disposed of on those terms.
The decision distinguishes between the merits of a security cheque defence, which must be established through evidence before the trial court, and the circumstances justifying relief against procedural costs. While the criminal complaint was permitted to proceed, the petitioner received relief from the financial consequence of his medically explained absence. The High Court did not decide whether the cheques were in fact security cheques or determine the underlying liability of the parties.
Cases Discussed
1. Sunil Todi Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Supreme Court) — 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174. The Delhi High Court relied upon this decision for the proposition that a defence alleging that cheques were issued as security must be established at trial on the basis of evidence and cannot ordinarily be determined in quashing proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks the following prayers:-
“a) quash the summoning order dated 24.08.2021 and all the subsequent orders of the complaint case filed before the Ld. Court of Metropolitan Magistrate North-West Delhi at Rohini in the case bearing Ct. Cases No. 19199 of 2019, titled “Prashant Malik Vs. Raj Kumar Santoshi”; and /or
b) set aside the order dated 31.01.2023 and 06.03.2023, vide which a cost of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the petitioner…”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the cheques issued by the petitioner were security cheques. He further states that in the present case repeated costs have been imposed by the trial court, despite the fact that the petitioner had undergone surgery and was therefore unable to appear before the court. He submits that even this court, while issuing notice and looking into the conditions of the petitioner, granted exemption to the petitioner from personal appearance.
3. It is no longer res integra that the defence of security cheque has to be established during trial, based upon evidence. Reference, in this regard may be made to the Supreme Court decision in Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported as 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174.
4. Even otherwise, it has been informed that the matter is now fixed for final arguments. Considering the aforesaid, I find no ground to entertain the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
However, insofar as imposition of costs of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, considering that the petitioner could not appear due to his ailment, the cost of Rs.25,000 imposed by trial court is set aside.
5. The petition is disposed of in above terms alongwith pending application.
DASTI.
