Delhi High Court
State vs Harish Bindal & Anr on 28 June, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 16th April, 2025
Pronounced on: 28th June, 2025
+ CRL.M.C. 150/2012
STATE .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Jogender, PS Shalimar Bagh.
versus
1. HARISH BINDAL
S/o SHRI NUNIA MAI
R/6 KATH MANDI, HISAR
2. TARUN BINDAL
S/o SHRI HARISH BINDAL
R/O KATH MANDI, HISAR .....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Hrishikesh Baruha, Mr. Anurag
Mishra and Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi,
Advocates.
Mr. Jeevesh Bindal, Advocate for R-1
& R-2.
+ CRL.REV.P. 408/2011, CRL.M.A. 17833/2013 & 3576/2022
PURAKH CHAND MINDA
Managing Director,
Jay Switches India [Pvt.] Limited
A-67/2, G.T. Karnal Road,
Industrial Area, Delhi .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hrishikesh Baruha, Mr. Anurag
Mishra and Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi,
Advocates.
versus
1. STATE
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 1 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
2. HARISH BINDAL
S/o NUNIAMAL BINDAL
R/o KATH MANDI,
HISSAR, HARYANA
3. TARUN BINDAL
S/o HARISH BINDAL
R/o KATH MANDI,
HISSAR, HARYANA .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State with
SI Jogender, PS Shalimar Bagh.
Mr. JeeveshBindal, Advocate for R-2
& R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
CRL.M.A. 6657/2023 in CRL.M.C. 150/2012
1. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the
Complainant Company M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. through its
Director Mr. Kunal Minda, to be given an opportunity of being heard since it
is the Company, which is the actual victim in the present case.
2. It is submitted that FIR No.542/2005 under Sections 379/467/468/
506/420/34 IPC was registered against Respondents on Complaint pursuant
to the directions of the learned MM in CC No.67/2005 filed under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. through
its Director Mr. Purakh Chand Minda (P. C. Minda). On completion of
investigation, the Chargesheet was filed against the Respondents. Sh. P. C.
Minda died on 04.11.2018 and the matter on behalf of the Company was
being pursued by Mr. Kunal Minda before the learned MM as well as before
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 2 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
learned ASJ. Therefore, permission has been sought by him to represent the
company in present Petitions.
3. Reliance has been placed on Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra
@ Monu &Anr., 2022 (9) SCC 321, wherein, it was observed that the
legislature has given a wide and expansive meaning to the expression
‘victim’ which means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused
by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been
charged. The victim therefore, has a right to come forward to participate in a
criminal proceeding even though the same are being undertaken on behalf of
the State.
4. The Application is supported by the Board Resolution dated
12.02.2023 authorising Mr. Kunal Minda to represent the Company. The
Applicant had represented the Complainant Company before the learned
MM as well as before learned ASJ.
5. No formal Reply has been filed by the Respondents to this
Application.
6. Considering that the complainant was M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt.
Ltd. though was earlier represented by its Director Mr. P. C. Minda, but is
being representing by Mr. Kunal Minda after the demise of Mr. P. C. Minda,
he is hereby, permitted and authorised to represent the Complainant
Company in the present Petition.
7. Application is accordingly, allowed and disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 and CRL.REV.P. 408/2011
8. These two Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. have been filed on
behalf of the State and the Complainant Company M/s. Jay Switches (India)
Pvt. Ltd. respectively, to challenge the Order dated 02.08.2011 of learned
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 3 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
District and Sessions Judge, Delhi, who has discharged the Respondents for
the offences under Sections 467/468/34 IPC and Harish Bindal of the
additional Charge under Section 379 IPC .
9. The facts in brief are that on 18.12.2003, Mr. P. C. Minda along with
his son-in-law / Respondent No. 1 Harish Binal went to AL-market,
Shalimar Bagh in his car bearing No.DL-8C-J04214 and went inside the
market to purchase the medicines. When he returned, he found his bag
containing Stamp Papers of Rs.2/-, Rs.5/-, Rs.10/- and Rs.100/-, his
Passport, blanked signed cheques and other valuable documents, were
missing. He got a NCR dated 18.12.2003 registered at PS: Shalimar Bagh
with regard to the loss of his bag containing his valuables. The Public
Notices were issued in the Newspaper on 26.12.2003 about the missing of
the valuables in his bag. On 26.03.2003, he also gave intimation to his Bank
regarding the missing of his cheques bearing No. 830615 and 830616 with
instructions to stop the payment of the said cheques.
10. On 07.02.2005, his bank officials informed him about the presentation
of the aforesaid two cheques for encashment, but on the basis of instructions
given by him, the payment against the said Cheques had been stopped.
11. The Complainant then filed a Complaint before the Ld. MM on
21.03.2005. He made the allegations that the valuables and his bag got
stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, who forged the two cheques
which only had the signatures of the Complainant. One cheque bearing No.
830615 was forged for an amount of Rs.1 crore in favour of Respondent No.
1 Harish Bindal, while the second Cheque No. 830616 was forged for an
amount of Rs.2.5 crore in favour of Respondent No. 2, Tarun Bindal.
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 4 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
12. The Complainant alleged that these were the blank signed Cheques
which had been stolen by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, on 18.12.2003,
who had accompanied him in his car to Shalimar Bagh Market. He had not
suspected Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, who is his son-in-law, of this
alleged theft on the date when he found his bag and valuable documents
missing. He came to know that missing cheques had in fact, been stolen by
Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, when he got the intimidation of cheques
being presented by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Harish Bindal and Tarun
Bindal for encasement. He then came to know about the cheating and
forgery and filed a Complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the
learned MM.
13. On the directions of the learned MM, present FIR No.542/2005 was
registered on 03.07.2005.
14. The investigation was duly carried out by the Police and Charge
Sheet was filed before the learned MM, on 16.10.2008.
15. Learned MM in his detailed Order dated 21.05.2011 referred to the
NCR, bank letters and Hand-Writing Expert Report to prima facie conclude
that offences under Sections 467/468/34 IPC were made out against both the
Respondents. Additionally, offence under Section 379 IPC was prima facie
made out against Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal.
16. Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, aggrieved by the aforesaid Order
on charge, filed C.R. No. 51/2011 before the learned District and Sessions
Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, who in his Order dated 02.08.2011, in detail
considered the apparent contradictions in the case of the Complainant and
the NCR dated 18.12.2003. He further relied upon the Hand-Writing
Expert’s Report to conclude that the cheques were signed by Mr. P.C. Minda
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 5 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
which led to a legal presumption against him under the NI Act. It was held
that no prima facie case was made out against the Respondents and
consequently, discharged them for the alleged Offences.
17. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Order of discharge dated 02.08.2011,
present two Petitions have been filed by State and Complainant Company
M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd. respectively.
18. The main ground of challenge is that at the Stage of Charge, a
broader view has to be taken while analysing the statements of witnesses.
The prima facie involvement, if disclosed, is sufficient for the purpose of
framing of Charge. The contents of the Chargesheet prima facie disclosed
sufficient material for the framing of Charges against the Respondents as has
already been observed by the learned MM in his Order dated 21.05.2011.
19. Reference has been made to the case of Tuncay Alankus and Ors. vs.
Union Of India & Ors., 2000 CRL. L. J. 3280, wherein it was observed that
where the material collected shows strong suspicion which lead to the court
to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients
constituting the offences alleged, it would be appropriate to frame the
Charge. Reliance has also been placed on Romesh Sharma vs. State, 2001 I
AD (Crl.) DHC 304 and Sajjan Kumar vs. C.B.I., 2010 (9) SCC 368,
wherein similar observations were made.
20. It is contended that Learned ASJ has failed to appreciate the well
settled principles of law that at the stage of framing of Charge, sifting and
weighing of evidence cannot be done and where the evidence / statements
made by the complainant / prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
and the Chargesheet filed by the Prosecuting Agency, if remained un-
rebutted and un-conflicted is believed to be true, the accused cannot be
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 6 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
discharged of the offence.The prima facie perusal of the material on record
and the Chargesheet would show great suspicion against the Respondents;
thus, there was no occasion for them to be discharged by the learned ASJ.
21. It is submitted that the Respondents had defended the cheques by
relying on the alleged Covering letters dated 25.09.2003, which had been
allegedly sent along with two cheques to the Respondents. It is asserted that
the FSL report has clearly opined that the body of the cheques, i.e. date,
amount and the name of drawee of the cheque, has been filled by
Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, thereby, giving rise to a grave suspicion
against both the Respondents. If the cheques had been actually issued by the
Complainant, where was the question of just giving blank cheques without
filling up the details.
22. It is further contended that the Respondents have relied on MoU dated
01.04.2001, but the two contesting witnesses, Mr. S. K. Mangla and
Mr. Ajay Kumar Bindal, in their statements recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. have stated they had signed the said MoU at the instance of
Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal and they had not seen the Complainant
signing the said MoU. Therefore, the authenticity of this MoU dated
01.04.2001 is suspicious and sufficient for corroborating the assertions of
the Complainant that the said documents have been forged by the
Respondents.
23. The Complainant has denied the execution of the MoU, the cheques
and Covering Letter, except having admitted his signatures, which find
corroboration from the FSL report. The genuineness or non-genuineness of
documents could not have been presumed without there being a trial and the
parties being given an opportunity to lead their respective evidence. It is
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 7 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
therefore, submitted that the impugned Order of discharge be set aside and
the case be put up for trial.
24. Respondents in their detailed reply have explained that Respondent
No. 1 Harish Bindal and Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal are son-in-law and
grandson respectively, of the Complainant P. C. Minda. Mr. P. C. Minda
was short of finances in his business and from time to time took the help of
the Respondents. A total loan of Rs.66 lacs had been given from time to
time through account payee cheques by the Respondents to P. C. Minda and
his sonDeepak Minda, upto 31.03.2001. Out of this amount, P. C. Minda
admitted the loan to the tune of Rs.64 lacs before the learned Trial Court as
well as the Revisional Court.
25. The Complainant company M/s. Jay Switches (India) Pvt. Ltd.
through its Director Mr. P. C. Minda had entered into a written Agreement /
MoU dated 01.04.2001 on a Stamp Paper of Rs.5/-, which he had purchased
on 20.12.2000, for Consultancy and Development of new products with
Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal who is a Mechanical Engineer, for the
augmentation of business of the Company. The signatures of P. C. Minda on
this MoU, are admitted. The said MoU laid down the conditions of the
emoluments to be paid to Tarun Bindal for his professional services, which
were in the nature of lump sum payment on monthly basis and also @
certain percentage as commission based on sales,spread over a period of
time for the next eight years. The MoU was duly acted upon and Tarun
Bindal was taken as Director of the Company on 01.01.2002. The
appointment of Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal as Director is an admitted
fact and he is also reflected in the FORM-32. The monthly payment of
Consultancy Charges are also admitted and corroborated by the Statement of
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 8 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
Accounts of Respondent No. 2, Tarun Bindal. Mr. P. C. Minda had admitted
the execution of MoU cum Agreement in his cross-examination, in
Complaint case under Section 138 NI Act against him.
26. It is further contended that P. C. Minda and other Directors of the
Complainant Company sighted fiscal constraints in immediate payment of
commission and asked Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal to accept the Post-
Dated Cheque for the commissioned amount, which was accepted by him in
view of the close family relations. The cheque for Rs.2.5 crore was issued
on 25.09.2003 along with the Confirmation Letter on the letterhead of the
Complainant Company. The signatures on both, the Cheque and
Confirmation Letter, are admitted by P. C. Minda.
27. It is further submitted that alongside the payment of commission, the
repayment of loan to the Respondents was also discussed.Again, because of
the financial constraints, P. C. Minda had requested Respondents to accept
the advance Cheques dated 15.02.2005 in the name of Harish Bindal
(Respondent No. 1) as part repayment of loan along with interest, which was
accompanied by a similar Confirmation letter on the Letter Head of the
Company.
28. Respondents submitted that on presentation of these cheques to the
bank for encashment, cheque No.830616 was dishonoured on 31.01.2005 by
Canara Bank and cheque No.830615 was dishonoured on 28.03.2005 by
Bank of Rajasthan.
29. The Legal Notices under Section 138 NI Act dated 06.02.2005 and
30.03.2005 respectively, were issued to P. C. Minda and thereafter, the
Complaints under Section 138 NI Act were filed against the Complainant
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 9 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
Company on 28.02.2005 and 29.04.2005 respectively before Learned MM,
Hisar.
30. It is contended on behalf of the Respondents that while in the NCR
dated 18.12.2003, it had been stated that the bag and documents had fallen
somewhere while P. C. Minda had gone to the shop in the market, but in the
Complaint there is a material improvement in claiming that Harish Bindal
(Respondent No. 1) was present in the car and he had stolen the bag and
documents.
31. To fabricate evidence, P. C. Minda had issued a false Advertisement
in two daily Newspaper, i.e. Jansatta and Indian Express, on 26.12.2003.
Similar Advertisements in the same Newspapers on the same facts, were
given by the son of the Complainant making an identical claim of loss of
bag and documents from his car on 18.12.2003. It is stated that similarity of
two Advertisements, timing, contents, bill payment and situation clearly
indicates that false evidence with regard to the alleged loss of bag and
documents has been created for ulterior and dishonest motive without any
incident and without loss of alleged bag of the Complainant.
32. Pertinently, for the first time it has been stated in the Complaint dated
21.03.2005 made to Learned MM that the bag also contained the signed
blank cheques. However, the number of the cheques was not specified
therein or in the NCR dated 18.12.2003. The allegations of theft of the
aforesaid two cheques is without any logic, basis and reason.
33. The Chargesheet and the documents filed therein reflect that both the
Respondents had received the two cheques along with the Covering
Letters. The Cheque Nos. 830614 and 830617 had been issued on
22.09.2003 and 25.09.2003 respectively,one of which is prior and the other
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 10 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
is subsequent to the serial number of the cheques issued to the Respondents
were duly encashed, which clearly shows that these impugned Cheques had
not been stolen, but in fact had been given to the Respondents as explained
by them. The averments made in the Complaint to the learned MM is a
counter blast to the Complaints filed under Section 138 NI Act ,out of
vendetta, mala fide and ulterior motives.
34. It is also asserted that information to the Bank about the Cheques
being missing was conveyed on 25.03.2004, i.e. 96 days after the incident,
which is highly abnormal and unbelievable. Furthermore, the falsity of the
entire assertions of the Complainant is evident from the statement of P. C.
Minda under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 28.05.2006, wherein he admitted
having received a loan of Rs.64 lacs from the Respondents through Account
Payee Cheques, but falsely alleged that the loan amount has been returned in
cash. Such alleged return of loan amount in cash, is in contravention of
Section 269T of the Income Tax Act, 1961. No documents of repayment of
loan in cash have been placed on record.
35. The evidence of hand-Writing Expert Mr. Anurag Sharma, who gave
his expert opinion, is not a direct evidence against the Respondents and is
not supported by the enlarged photographs of the compared writings. Mr.
Anurag Sharma, in his statement on oath in the Complaints under Section
138 NI Act, had stated that he was unable to demonstrate the similarity of
the compared signatures before the Court. His Report is incomplete and
even if it remains un-rebutted, it is insufficient to bring home the offence of
theft and forgery.
36. Moreover, Section 20 NI Act supports the case of the Respondents. In
judgment dated 13.03.2008 passed by this Court in CRL.M.C. 5211/2006
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 11 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
titled as Ravi Chopra vs. State, it was observed that it is possible for the
drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed under the signatures to the
payee and the consent either expressed or implied to the cheque being filled
up at a subsequent point of time and presented for payment by drawee, is
implied. Where the cheque has been signed by the drawer, the fact that the
ink in which the name and figures are written is different from the ink of the
signatures,is not a material alteration for the purpose of Section 87 NI Act.
37. It is therefore, asserted that from the admitted facts, the fact that the
alleged documents having gone missing or the cheques along with the
Covering letter not having been issued by the Complainant, is on the face of
it patently incorrect. The learned ASJ has rightly appreciated the facts and
the documents to conclude that there is no offence made out against the
Respondents.
38. There is no merit in the present Petition, which is liable to be
dismissed.
39. Submissions heard, record and written submissions filed on
behalf of the Respondents are perused.
40. The main allegation made by the Complainant was that his blank
signed Cheques, etc.which he had thought had gone missing, were in fact
stolen and manipulated by the Respondents, who are none other than his
son-in-law and grandson. The Charge Sheet had been filed against the
respondents under Sections 379/420/467/468/471/506/34 IPC. While Ld.
MM directed framing of charges against them under Sections 467/34 IP’C
and 471/34 IPC , they have been discharged by the Ld. ASJ.
Contradictory and Delayed Claim of Theft of Cheques and Documents:
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 12 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
41. The case of the Complainant Company is that while P. C. Minda, its
Director along with Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, who is his son-in-law,
had gone to Shalimar Bagh market to purchase medicines on 18.12.2003.
On returning from the shop, he realised that his Bag containing signed blank
Letterheads of the Company and cheques along with blank Stamp papers
and other documents, were missing. Thinking that the same had been
dropped / lost somewhere, he got an NCR dated 18.12.2003 registered at PS:
Shalimar Bagh.
42. He also took out an Advertisement in two daily newspapers, namely
Jansatta and Indian Express on 26.12.2003, in regard to his missing
documents.
43. The Respondents have asserted that interestingly, similar
Advertisements had been made in the name of the son of P. C. Minda as
well for the same date and the same documents. Two persons, i.e. father and
son, could not have lost the same documents on the same day in the same
manner. The way Public Notices have been published, clearly indicate the
falsity of the claim of the complainant.
44. However, this contention has no merit for the reason that the
advertisements taken out by P. C. Minda and his son pertained to the same
incident of loss of documents of the Company which were being carried by
P. C. Minda. To claim that there are two different assertions being made by
two different people about the same incident, is clearly not tenable.
45. Respondents have further asserted that in December, 2003, the
Complainant had alleged that the documents had been misplaced, but
subsequently in his Complaint filed on 21.03.2005, the entire version
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 13 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
changes, wherein allegationsof theft had been made against the Respondents
who are none other than his son-in-law and grandson.
46. Pertinently, the backdrop, in which the Complaint has been made,
needs to be considered. The Complainant at the time when he found his
documents missing on 18.12.2003, naturally presumed them to have been
misplaced in regard to which he took due precaution by getting a NCR
recorded and by taking out an Advertisement in two daily Newspapers, in
2003 itself.
47. It is undisputed that the Respondents gave Legal Notices on
06.02.2005 and 30.03.2005 under Section 138 NI Act, claiming that two
cheques of Rs.1 crore and Rs.2.5 crore issued in the name of Respondent
No. 1 Harish Bindal and Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal, respectively have
been dishonoured on presentation.
48. The Complainant has explained that it is only on receiving the Legal
Notices dated 06.02.2005 and 30.03.2005 in regard to these presumably lost
cheques, that he became aware that these documents had not been misplaced
as he had presumed, but had in fact, been taken by Respondent No. 1 Harish
Bindal.
49. To say that his allegations are malafide or an afterthought, may not be
correct in the light of the facts as stated in the Complaint. It cannot be
overlooked that the NCR and Advertisement to Report the Loss of
documents was done in December, 2003 and complaint was filed on
21.03.2005.While the Cheques have emerged after almost more than one
year in February, March, 2005. It cannot be over looked that the conduct of
the Complainant was natural in the circumstances to report the missing
documents. It would be absurd to even consider that he would have schemed
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 14 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
and planned his defence in regard to these cheques, more than one year in
advance. If so was the intent, nothing prevented the Complainant to lodge
the report of theft rather than of misplacing the documents. The Relationship
between the parties cannot be over looked for the Complainant to have
thought it to be a case of theft at that time.
50. It also cannot be overlooked that the Complainant on becoming
conscious of his cheques being missing, gave due intimation to the bank to
stop the payments. Such information may have been conveyed after a period
of 96 days, but in these circumstances when the Complainant was under the
impression that the cheques have been misplaced, time taken to get the
payments against the Cheques stopped, cannot be considered as a
circumstances creating a doubt about the entire story at the time of framing
of Charge or entitling the Respondents to Discharge.
51. Respondents had heavily relied on the letter of Canara Bank dated
08.02.2008, wherein it was indicated that Cheque Nos. 830614 and 830617
of the same series, which was issued prior and after the impugned two
Cheques bearing Nos. 830615 and 830616, were duly encashed in the year
2003, shows that the allegations are manipulated.
52. However, it has been explained by the Complainant that since he used
to travel frequently and in order to ensure that business of the Company is
not hampered in his absence, he used to leave some loose blank cheques and
letter heads of the Company under his signatures to facilitate the business. It
is therefore, his explanation as to why these two impugned cheques were
blank signed cheques. Therefore, the circumstance that cheques prior and
subsequent to the impugned two cheques got honoured in 2003, itself cannot
be a circumstance which makes the entire Complaint false or warrants the
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 15 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
rejection of the case of the Complainant. Rather, it corroborates the case of
the Complainant about these Cheques having gone missing.
53. Rather, this contention of the Respondents that the prior and
subsequent cheques got issued on 22.09.2003 and on 27.09.2003, i.e. about
three months prior to the alleged theft, prima facie shows that these cheques
had been issued in due course by the Complainant and the same is duly
corroborated by the impugned Covering Letters dated 25.09.2003 issued
along with cheque Nos. 830615 and 830616, is not acceptable.
54. The Respondents had taken a plea that the present Complaint and
consequent registration of the FIR was only a defence sought to be created
by the Complainant to the Complaints under Section 138 NI Act, which got
filed by the Respondents.
55. However, from the circumstances as stated above, the Complainant
got to know about the alleged misuse and theft of cheques only on receiving
the Legal Notices dated February- March, 2005 under Section 138 NI Act,
which the Complainant had presumed to be misplaced, were in fact stolen
by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal. Whether those were misplaced or
stolen, is a disputed fact and it cannot be considered at the stage of
considering the prima facie case for the purpose of framing of Charge.
MoU dated 01.04.2001:
56. The other document on which Respondents have relied upon is MoU
executed on 01.04.2001, wherein it was recorded that Respondent No. 2
Tarun Bindal had been appointed as a Director in the Complainant Company
w.e.f. 01.01.2002 and the FORM-32 was duly submitted to the ROC. It was
agreed that he would keep monthly emoluments @ Rs.25,000/-, which is
corroborated by the bank statements. It also contained a clause that
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 16 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
Respondent No. 2 shall be entitled to the commission @ 50% on the profits
to be earned from the business. It is claimed by the Respondents that the
cheques of Rs.2.5 crore was given to Respondent No. 2 as his Commission,
as per the covenant contained in this MoU dated 01.04.2001. The said MoU
has been on the Stamp Paper of Rs.5/-, which was purchased on
20.12.2000.The recitations of MoU which are fully corroborated by the
independent documents, establishes the authenticity of the MoU and also
that Cheques were issued by the Complainant in due course and were not
stolen.
57. According to the Complainant, it was one of the blank stamp papers,
which the Complainant had misplaced in the year December, 2003, which
have been misused by the Respondents to create this MoU. He has denied
the authenticity of the said MoU.
58. The statement of the two attesting witnesses, i.e. Mr. S. K. Mangla
and Mr. Ajay Kumar Bindal, were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C by the
Investigating Officer, who stated that they had signed the MoU at the
instance of Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, but had not seen the
Complainant signing it. This prima facie raises the question about the
authenticity of the MoU, which cannot be considered in favour of the
Respondents, at this stage of framing of Charge.
59. The Respondents have also relied on the statement made by the P. C.
Minda in his cross-examination during the trial of Complaint Case under
Section 138 NI Act, wherein it was admitted that MoU had been executed
by him. This admission of the Complainant cannot be considered at the stage
of considering the prima facie case at the stage of Charge as such alleged
admissions need to be proved by confronting the Complainant with the
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 17 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
same. It may be a significant aspect but cannot be considered at the stage of
framing of Charge. The Complainant has denied the authenticity of MoU,
which needs to be adjudicated only during the trial.
Documents of the Respondents:
60. Respondents had filed their Balance Sheets and Bank Statements
before the learned ASJ. First and foremost, these documents have been
produced by the Respondents at the stage of framing of Charge, which
cannot be considered at this stage but are required to be proved by the
Respondents at the appropriate stage of evidence, as has been held in the
case of State of Orissa v, Debendra Nath Padhi AIR 2005 SC 359.
61. Further, without prejudice, the Balance Sheets of 31.03.2001 and
31.03.2005 reflect that Rs.21,50,000/- had been duly received by the
Complainant Company. In this context, the MoU may also be referred to,
wherein, there is an acknowledgment that a sum of Rs.21,50,000/- advanced
by the Respondents to P. C. Minda and his son Deepak Minda, Directors,
shall be taken as investment in the business, in which Respondent No. 2
Tarun Bindal had agreed to contribute his expertise. This amount as
indicated in MoU, fully correspond with the Bank Statements.
62. It was explained by the Complainant that only Rs.41,50,000/- had
been taken as an interest free loan by the Complainant and his son from the
Respondents at the family level, which had already been returned to them. It
was further asserted by the Complainant that Rs.22,00,000/- had been
returned by cheque and Rs.19,00,000/- in cash. According to the
Complainant, they refuted there being any loan that was due to the
Respondents and therefore, have claimed these Covering Letters and the
cheques being manipulated and fabricated.
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 18 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
63. The Balance Sheets as well as MoU on which such heavy reliance has
been placed by the Respondents, further create a doubt about the
authenticity of there being any outstanding loan in respect of which the
impugned cheque of Rs.1 crore was issued to Respondent No. 1 Harish
Bindal. It cannot be overlooked that according to the Respondents, the loan
had been extended by them to the Complainant and his son and if so was the
case, where was the question of giving the alleged return of the loan amount
in the individual name of Respondents.
64. In any case, these are all defences which need to be proved and
considered at the appropriate stage.
Covering Letters dated 25.09.2003:
65. The next set of documents on which the Respondents have relied
upon to plead their innocence, are two Covering Letters dated 25.09.2003
along with which the impugned two cheques have been allegedly received
by the Respondents.
66. The Complainant has taken a plea that these were the blank Letter
heads of the Company which had only his signatures, which had been stolen
by Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal and have been misappropriated and
forged by both the Respondents.
67. To corroborate that these cheques have been manipulated, reference
has been made to the contents of Letters dated 25.09.2003 addressed to
Respondent No. 2 Tarun Bindal, wherein it is indicated that the cheque of
Rs.2.5 crore has been given in 2003 for the projected profits for the next five
years and the estimated commission to which Respondent No. 2 Tarun
Bindal would become entitled.
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 19 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
68. Though, it may not be appropriate to comment on this aspect, but it
cannot be overlooked that no business person would give a commission in
2003 for the business and the profits that may accrue in the future. The
contents of the Letter need to be proved through evidence especially in the
light of denial of its contents by the Complainant.
69. The reference may also be made to the Covering Letter dated
25.09.2003 addressed to Respondent No. 1 Harish Bindal, wherein a
reference is made that an advance had been given by both the Respondents
to Complainant P. C. Minda and his son Deepak Minda in a total sum of
Rs.1,07,29,267/-, towards which post dated cheque No. 830615 dated
15.02.2005 for an amount of Rs.1 crore, was issued.
70. Pertinently, the Letter indicates that the Principal sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- was given between 03.07.1996 to 01.02.2005 and
Rs.41,50,000/- were given between 01.04.2001 and 01.02.2005. According
to this Letter dated 25.09.2003, the loans were given upto 2005. If so was
the case, where was the need of giving a post-dated cheque in 2003.
Moreover, the total amount along with interest was indicated as
Rs.1,07,29,267/-, while the cheque was of Rs.1 crore.
71. There are material contradictory facts which have been mentioned in
this Letter, on which the Respondents have relied heavily to justify the two
impugned cheques, which can only be adjudicated through trial.
72. The documents per se, authenticity of which has been denied by the
Complainant, cannot be adjudicated at the stage of asserting if there is a
prima facie case made out against the Respondents.
73. The Apex Court in the case of Sajjan Kumar (Supra) has observed
that the presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 20 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
initial stage, is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the
Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence as stated in the
Chargesheet along with the documents be considered as gospel truth, still
then the discharge is not justified.
74. The Complainant has claimed the Letters were manipulated on the
blank signed Letter Heads of the Company by the Respondents. The
question of authenticity of these Letters, which is claimed by the
Complainant to be fabricated, needs to be established only by way of
evidence.
FSL Report:
75. The FSL establishes that the documents had the signatures of P. C.
Minda, but that itself is not sufficient as the Complainant himself has
admitted his signatures on these documents. However, the assertion is that
the contents of the documents have been fabricated, which can be
ascertained only by evidence.
Conclusion:
76. In the present case, the various documents relied upon by the
Respondents to claim their innocence, are all disputed documents and their
authenticity can only be established by way of evidence and cannot be
adjudicated at this stage of framing of Charge.
77. The statement of the Complainant that it was blank Cheques and the
Letterhead which had his signatures and which have been subsequently
manipulated by the Respondents coupled with the attending circumstances,
do give rise to a prima facie case of theft against Respondent No. 1 Harish
Bindal and under Sections 467/471/34 IPC against both the Respondents.
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 21 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57
78. The learned District and Sessions Judge fell in error in getting into the
presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of NI Act to practically adjudicate
the cases under Section 138 NI Act, which was beyond the scope of
consideration whether Chargesheet and the documents disclosed are prima
facie case against the Respondents.
79. The impugned Order dated 02.08.2011 passed by learned District and
Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi, is hereby set aside and the Order of
the learned MM framing the charges against both the Respondents, is
upheld.
80. Learned MM is directed to continue with the trial by recording the
evidence of the prosecution. It is hereby, clarified that observations made
herein, are not an expression on the merits of the case.
81. Petitions and pending Applications, if any, are accordingly disposed
of. Parties are directed to appear before the learned MM on 07.07.2025.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
JUNE 28, 2025/R
CRL.M.C. 150/2012 & CRL.REV.P. 408/2011 Page 22 of 22
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:02.07.2025
15:03:57