2019 (7) TMI 1747 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - application of the petitioners for keeping the proceedings of the trial in abeyance has been dismissed - HELD THAT - This Court finds that even before the trial Court started adjourning the case on joint request, the opportunity was granted to the petitioners to lead their evidence in defence. The order dated 08th January, 2019 would show that even the last opportunity was granted to the petitioners to produce their evidence in defence. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity with the order on the face of it, warranting any interference with the same, so far as the merits of the case are concerned. However, since the petitioners are accused of an offence for which they can suffer even imprisonment, therefore, lest the petitioners should have any grievance, though mistaken, that they have not been granted fair opportunity to defence themselves against the charge, it would not be unjustified to grant them one more opportunity to lead their evidence in defence, though by putting them to some financial burden - the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to provide one effective opportunity to the petitioners to lead their defence evidence, however, subject to payment of ₹ 25,000/- as costs.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of the order dated 18.05.2019 passed by JMIC, Faridabad in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Challenge to the part of the order closing the defense evidence of the petitioners.

Analysis:
1. The petition sought the quashing of the order dated 18.05.2019 passed by the JMIC, Faridabad, in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioners initially challenged the dismissal of their application for keeping the trial proceedings in abeyance. However, they decided to pursue the petition only regarding the part of the order where their defense evidence was closed. The Court noted the limited scope of the challenge and proceeded accordingly.

2. The petitioners contended that they were unable to present their defense properly due to not filing the appropriate application to place on record certain documents. They argued that they had sought a date to produce defense witnesses but faced delays due to efforts for an amicable settlement. The petitioners emphasized their intention to present their defense and requested an opportunity to do so. The Court observed that the trial court had already granted multiple opportunities to the petitioners to lead their defense evidence. While finding no illegality in the order, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense and granted the petitioners one more opportunity to present their defense, subject to a cost of &8377; 25,000 to be deposited with a specified institute within two weeks.

In conclusion, the High Court disposed of the petition by directing the trial court to provide the petitioners with one effective opportunity to lead their defense evidence, subject to the payment of costs. The trial court was instructed to grant this opportunity only upon receipt of the deposited costs. This judgment balanced the interests of justice with the need to ensure a fair trial process in a case involving potential imprisonment for the accused petitioners.