2014 (5) TMI 1199 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - Summon for the offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - petitioner submits that the cheque in question was not issued towards any debt or liability and the complainant had used stolen cheque - Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. are not required to be invoked to quash the proceedings arising out of the complaint in question - in view of the ground reality that this Court is being clogged by filing such petitions, it is the need of the hour to direct the petitioner to approach trial Court, so that such petitioners instead of straightaway rushing this Court ought to seek dropping of the proceedings by the trial court to ensure that summary trial in such like matters does not get unnecessarily delayed. The petitioner is relegated to trial Court to urge all the pleas taken herein before learned trial Court at the time of hearing on notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Quashing of summons under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, jurisdiction of trial court, invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Quashing of Summons under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner sought quashing of the order summoning them for an offence under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner argued that the cheque in question was not related to any debt or liability, and it was claimed that the complainant had used a stolen cheque. The petitioner had resigned before the incident. The counsel contended that the provisions of Section 138/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not applicable. However, the court, after hearing both parties, decided that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. were not necessary to quash the proceedings. The court referred to the dictum of the Apex Court in a specific case to support its decision.

Jurisdiction of Trial Court:
In another case, it was observed that if an accused or any other person raises an objection regarding the trial court's jurisdiction, they should file an application before the trial court with relevant facts. The court emphasized that the trial court should decide the question of jurisdiction before proceeding further with the case. The judgment and order were set aside, allowing the appellant to approach the trial court with a suitable application regarding jurisdiction.

Invoking Inherent Powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.:
The court highlighted the need for petitioners to approach the trial court instead of directly filing petitions in higher courts to prevent unnecessary delays in summary trials. The petitioner was directed to raise all pleas before the trial court during the hearing on notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. The trial court was instructed to consider the pleas in accordance with the law and pass a reasoned order. The court emphasized that the trial court should not mechanically frame notices but should apply its mind to determine if a prima facie case exists against the accused.

Conclusion:
The petitioner was directed to go back to the trial court to present all arguments and pleas during the hearing on the notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. The trial court was instructed to decide on the framing of notice and jurisdiction before proceeding with the trial. The petitioner's personal appearance was not insisted upon until the trial court decided on the framing of notice. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and a related application was dismissed as infructuous.