Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (11) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2021 (11) TMI 989 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the dispute regarding the bounced cheque is purely civil and thus not maintainable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
2. Whether the plea of the accused that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt can be examined at the threshold or constitutes a defense to be proved during the trial.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Civil vs. Criminal Nature of the Dispute:
The petitioner argued that the dispute was of a civil nature and that the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was filed to harass him. The court acknowledged that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for harassment in civil disputes. However, it emphasized that certain offenses like those under Section 138 of the N.I. Act arise from civil transactions and can be pursued criminally if the ingredients of the offense are made out. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Ripudaman Singh vs Balkrishna, which held that cheques issued under an agreement to sell constitute a legally enforceable debt. Thus, the court concluded that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was maintainable as it involved a legally enforceable debt.

2. Examination of the Accused's Plea at the Threshold:
The petitioner contended that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt and that this should be examined at the threshold. The court noted that under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, there is a presumption that a cheque is issued for discharging a legally enforceable debt. This presumption can be rebutted by the accused during the trial. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Laxmi Dyechem vs State of Gujarat, which highlighted that the burden of proving a probable defense lies on the accused and should be done during the trial. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Shiv Kumar vs. Ramavtar Agarwal, which upheld that rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 can only be done after adducing evidence. Consequently, the court held that the accused's plea that the cheque was not for a legally enforceable debt could not be examined at the threshold and constituted a defense to be proved during the trial.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. It held that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was maintainable and that the accused's plea regarding the enforceability of the debt should be examined during the trial. The court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be used to harass individuals in civil disputes but recognized that Section 138 of the N.I. Act involves both criminal and compensatory aspects, making it a valid legal remedy for dishonored cheques.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates