9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of complaints u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). 2. Procedure for summary trial u/s 138 N.I. Act. 3. Role of High Court and Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in such cases. 4. Rights and obligations of the accused and complainant. Summary: Issue 1: Quashing of Complaints u/s 138 N.I. Act The High Court is inundated with petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash complaints u/s 138 N.I. Act, arguing that MMs cannot recall their own summoning orders. Petitioners rely on Adalat Prasad vs. Rooplal Jindal and Others, which states that if a Magistrate takes cognizance without allegations or material against the accused, the order may be vitiated, and the remedy lies in invoking section 482 Cr.P.C. However, the petitions before the Court seek quashing based on various defenses like the petitioner not being a Director at the relevant time, being a sleeping partner, or the cheque being issued without consideration. These defenses should be raised before the MM, not the High Court. Issue 2: Procedure for Summary Trial u/s 138 N.I. ActSection 143 of N.I. Act mandates that offences u/s 138 be tried summarily by Judicial Magistrate of First Class or MM, in accordance with sections 262 to 265 Cr.P.C. If the MM finds that a sentence exceeding one year may be necessary, they must pass an order to try the case as a summon trial. Section 145 allows the complainant to give evidence by affidavit, which should be read at both pre-summoning and post-summoning stages unless the MM orders otherwise. The current practice of MMs, which involves recalling complainants for evidence post-summoning, is contrary to the summary trial provisions. Issue 3: Role of High Court and Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) in Such CasesThe High Court should not entertain petitions that seek to quash summoning orders based on defenses that should be raised before the MM. The MM should follow the summary trial procedure, ensuring that the accused discloses their defense upon appearance. The High Court cannot usurp the powers of the MM and must direct petitioners to present their defenses at the MM level. Issue 4: Rights and Obligations of the Accused and ComplainantThe accused must disclose their defense upon appearance and can file necessary documents and applications to recall witnesses for cross-examination. The argument that the accused has a right to silence under Article 21 of the Constitution is misconceived in the context of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which places the onus of proving defenses on the accused. The complainant's affidavit and documents filed with the complaint are sufficient evidence unless challenged by the accused. Conclusion:The petitions are dismissed, and petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned MM to proceed with the trial as per the summary trial procedure outlined. A copy of this judgment is to be circulated among District Judges.
|
