Inderjeet Chhabra vs. Devjani Patra
AI Summary
In this High Court of Delhi judgment, Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra dismissed a petition challenging a summoning order under the Negotiable Instruments Act, directing the petitioner to raise his defence before the trial court instead. The order clarifies the procedural mechanism available to accused persons to challenge summoning orders in cheque dishonour cases following the landmark judgment in Rajesh Agrawal v. State.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
Inderjeet Chhabra was summoned by the trial court at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The case originated on 2008-09-15 with case number 457/120-08. Chhabra filed a petition in the High Court on 2010-02-22 challenging the summoning order, claiming that he was not the drawer of the cheque and therefore no case was made out against him under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petition was heard multiple times before Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra between 2010-11-23 and 2011-02-22.
Timeline of Events
Original case filed in Patiala House Courts, New Delhi under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Case No. 457/120-08)
Petition filed in High Court of Delhi challenging the summoning order (CRL.M.C. 570/2010)
First hearing before Justice S.L. Bhayana for fresh matters and applications
Hearing before Justice Sanjiv Khanna for admission of the petition
Hearing before Justice Sanjiv Khanna for after-notice miscellaneous matters
Hearing before Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra for after-notice miscellaneous matters
Hearing before Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra for after-notice miscellaneous matters
Final hearing and order passed by Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra dismissing the petition
Key Factual Findings
The petitioner was summoned by the trial court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
The petitioner claims he was not the drawer of the cheque
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
The petitioner contends that no case was made out against him as per provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Source: Recited from Petitioner Pleading
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner argued that: (1) He was not the drawer of the cheque; (2) No case was made out against him as per the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act; (3) He was wrongly summoned by the trial court; (4) The High Court should quash the summoning order.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondent did not appear or present arguments in this petition. The respondent's position is not detailed in the order.
Court's Reasoning
The High Court reasoned that following the judgment in Rajesh Agrawal v. State & Anr., the petitioner has a clear and available remedy before the trial court itself. The petitioner can make an application before the trial court immediately upon accepting notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., raising the defence that he is not the drawer of the cheque. The trial court is obliged to decide such an application. Therefore, there is no need for the High Court to intervene at this preliminary stage. The petition was not pressed by the petitioner's counsel, and the High Court dismissed it accordingly. However, the court granted a procedural relief by directing that the trial court shall not insist upon the petitioner's personal appearance until his application before the trial court is disposed of.
- Emphasis on Procedural Efficiency - The court preferred to direct the petitioner to the trial court rather than interfere at the High Court level
- Respect for Lower Court Jurisdiction - The court acknowledged the trial court's authority and obligation to decide applications raising defences
- Reliance on Precedent - The court heavily relied on the Rajesh Agrawal judgment to guide its decision
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Petitioner shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court for taking notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.
- 2.Petitioner shall make necessary application before the trial Court at the time of receiving notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. giving his defence
- 3.Trial Court shall not insist upon personal appearance of the petitioner until the application of the petitioner is disposed of by the trial Court
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other High Court)
This is a single judge decision of the Delhi High Court that clarifies the procedural mechanism for raising defences in Negotiable Instruments Act cases following the Rajesh Agrawal judgment. While not binding on other High Courts, it provides persuasive guidance on the proper procedure for challenging summoning orders in cheque dishonour cases. The decision is significant for practitioners and accused persons in similar situations.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
After Notice Misc. Matters
Before:
Hon'ble Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra
Listed On:
22 Feb 2011
Order Text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 570/2010
INDERJEET CHHABRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh & Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocates
versus
DEVJANI PATRA
..... Respondent
CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
Ł
%
<u>ORDER</u> 22.02.2011
This petition has been filed assailing summoning order passed by the trial Court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the petitioner was not a drawer of the cheque and no case was made out against him as per provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act and he was wrongly summoned. After judgment of Rajesh Agrawal v. State & Anr. [171 (2010) DLT 51] the petitioner could straightway make an application before the trial Court taking this defence, immediately on summoning, on acceptance of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and trial Court is obliged to decide the application of the petitioner. The Counsel for the petitioner states that he shall make necessary application before the trial Court at the time of receiving notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. giving his defence and does not press this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed being not pressed.
The petitioner shall appear on the date fixed by the trial Court for taking notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and thereafter until the application of the petitioner is disposed of by the trial Court, the trial Court shall not insist upon personal appearance of the petitioner.
SHIV NARÂY ŚŃ DHINGRA.J
FEBRUARY 22, 2011
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order