Sumaj Jain v. State And Another

Suresh Kumar Kait, J.:— In Crl.M.C.459/2021 filed under section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner seeks quashing/setting aside of order dated 10.02.2021 in the matter titled as ‘Rikta Bajaj v. Sumaj Jain’ under section 138 NI Act.

2. Other petitions have been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing/setting aside of the order dated 10.02.2021 passed by learned MM (NI Act), N/W Rohini, Delhi, for cancellation of PO proceedings thereby also quashing order dated 06.10.2018 by virtue of which the process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was initiated against the petitioner in all the cases as ‘Rikta Bajaj v. Sumaj Jain’ under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. Since the subject matter of all the petitions is similar, therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, all the petitions have been heard and are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the convenience, Crl.M.C.524/2021 has been kept as a lead case.

4. The brief facts of the cases are that petitioner is accused in complaint case bearing titled as ‘Rikta Bajaj v. Sumaj Jain’ for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act along with 10 connected petitions filed by respondent no. 2. Vide order dated 21.04.2016, summons were issued against the petitioner. On 02.08.2016, fresh steps were directed to be taken by respondent no. 2/complainant to get the service effected. On 18.03.2017, when counsel appeared on behalf of petitioner before the Trial Court, he moved an exemption application on behalf of the petitioner and the same was allowed for that day on the ground that accused/petitioner had not received copy of complaint and other relevant documents and at joint request, learned MM had referred the matter before Lok Adalat. On 08.04.2017, matter was again referred to court as none appeared on behalf of the parties before Lok Adalat.

5. Vide order dated 17.10.2017, when the petitioner did not appear before Trial Court, consequently, NBWs were issued against him and matter was fixed on 07.02.2018. On the said date, NBWs were received back unexecuted with the report that Sh. Mahender Prasad Jain, father of the accused/petitioner was found at the given address and he stated that accused has not been residing with him from the last 25 years. He also informed the process server that accused is residing at 81, Sainik Farms, Khan Pur and when process server went to that address, he found one Sh. R.P. Mittal who informed him that the accused comes to that address occasionally. Then the process server went to another address i.e. F-315, Lado Sarai, M.B. Road, New Delh wherein he found Sh. R.N. Pandey (security guard) and he informed that the company is lying closed since last four months.

6. Accordingly, Trial Court was of the view that accused was deliberately avoiding the process of court, therefore, process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him and matter was fixed for 06.07.2018. On the said date, instead of petitioner appearance, counsel for the petitioner appeared and application for exemption from personal appearance was moved and the same was dismissed. On 21.07.2018, counsel for petitioner again moved exemption application which was also dismissed on the reasoning that no satisfactory reason was given for non-appearance of accused and again fresh process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued.

7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that learned court below has not complied with section 82 Cr.P.C. and declared the petitioner PO vide order dated 06.10.2018. Thereafter to show the bonafide of the petitioner, he submitted that vide settlement agreement dated 09.05.2019, the petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 32 lacs with interest @ 12% p.a. in full and final settlement of all the claims to respondent no. 2 with an undertaking that in addition to abovementioned amount, petitioner shall pay Rs. 10 lacs with interest @ 12 p.a. (total amount Rs. 42 lacs), however, counsel for petitioner submits that he has instructions only to the extent of Rs. 32 lacs and to show bonafide, he has paid Rs. 8.5 lacs. Thus, petitioner is ready to face the trial if order dated 06.10.2018 is set aside and court below may be directed to expedite the trial.

8. It is not in dispute that the complaints in questions are of year 2016 and vide order dated 21.04.2016, summons were issued against the petitioner. But the fact remains and the same is not in dispute that the petitioner never appeared before the Trial Court and was finally declared PO on 06.10.2018 by the Trial Court.

9. It is also not in dispute that matter was settled between the petitioners and complainant before Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre (SAMADHAN) on 09.05.2019 despite the settlement taken place he has not paid the entire amount as agreed thereto and had only paid the part amount mentioned above.

10. On perusal of the ordersheets and the conduct of the petitioner, it seems that petitioner is over smart and has no respect to law. He is taking the system for right, whereas the complainant is running from pillar to post and despite the settlement arrived at, however, not coming forward to pay the amount. Thus, the petitioner is playing hide and seek not only with the complainant but also with Courts.

11. Keeping in view the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to interfere with order dated 10.02.2021 and 06.10.2018 passed by the Trial Court.

12. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.