9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Quashing of impugned order summoning the petitioner as accused under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Summary: In the case before the Delhi High Court, the petitioner sought the quashing of the order summoning them as an accused under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner's counsel argued that there were no specific averments against the petitioner in the complaint regarding their role in the company's business conduct, and that the cheque in question was not signed by the petitioner. It was highlighted that the Notice under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) had not yet been framed in the complaint case. Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Bhushan Kumar and Krishan Kumar, the Court emphasized the trial court's duty to consider the allegations and evidence before framing charges. The Court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case, allowing the petitioner to raise their arguments before the trial court during the framing of Notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. The Court, guided by the Supreme Court's precedents, disposed of the petition and application without prejudicing either party. It granted liberty to the petitioner to present their arguments before the trial court during the framing of Notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C. If the trial court decides to drop the proceedings against the petitioner, the Court clarified that the Apex Court's decision in Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal and Ors. would not hinder such a decision. The petitioner's personal appearance before the trial court was not mandated until the framing of Notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., provided they were represented by counsel who did not seek adjournment on their behalf. If the trial court chooses to frame Notice under Section 251 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner would have the liberty to avail of legal remedies available.
|
