In CRL.M.A. 17894/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court dismisses applications by Birla conglomerate scion seeking dismissal of NI Act complaint, saying non-disclosure of previous petitions not material concealment
Justice Amit Sharma [23-11-2023]

Read Order: Yashovardhan Birla & Ors. V. Kamdhenu Enterprises Limited and Anr.

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, November 24, 2023: The Delhi High Court has dismissed applications filed by Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. and M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd. seeking the dismissal of petitions filed by Yashovardhan Birla, chairman of the Yash Birla Group of industries, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

In the said case, the present applications, filed by Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. and M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd., sought the dismissal of petitions filed by Yashovardhan Birla on grounds of fraud and the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). The captioned petitions aimed to quash cases instituted by the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act, pending in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, Delhi.

The main crux of the arguments presented by the counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant was the alleged concealment by the non-applicant concerning the earlier petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking similar relief as in the present petitions. The fact that both petitions primarily sought similar relief was not disputed. The earlier petitions were disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 14.08.2014.

The single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma referred to Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and Ors. [LQ/SC/2007/584], wherein it was observed that it is trite law that to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, suppression must be of a material fact. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of the determination of the lis, the logical corollary whereof would be that whether the same was material for the grant or denial of the relief. If the fact suppressed is not material for the determination of the lis between the parties, the court may not refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction.

The bench considered the argument of alleged suppression of facts in the present petitions regarding previous petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. It emphasized that for suppression to be material, it must affect the rights of the parties in determining the case's merits. It was noted that the order from the previous petitions did not determine the current lis and simply allowed withdrawal with the liberty to raise contentions before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Therefore, the bench concluded that the alleged suppression did not impact the determination of the present case's merits.

The bench also stated that in the present applications, there was no averment made regarding the effect of non-disclosure of the earlier petitions and the order on the merits of the case. The bench expressed the view that the order could not be considered as res judicata between the parties.

Top of Form

“Similarly, the non-mentioning of the filing of the applications under Section 145(2) of the NI Act and the discrepancy in the language of the list of dates and the content of the main petition is not a material discrepancy which warrants a dismissal of the captioned petitions, at the very outset, without an examination of the merits of the case,” further observed the bench.

Consequently, the bench ruled that the non-mentioning of details of the earlier petitions and their withdrawal did not amount to deliberate concealment. The bench emphasized that prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned only in cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious, and where there is distinct evidence of the commission of an offense. The bench also highlighted the need for exceptional circumstances and distinct evidence of deliberate perjury to initiate contempt proceedings.

With the above observations, the present applications were dismissed and disposed of accordingly.