9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 2. Dispute regarding the date of issuance of post-dated cheques. 3. Interpretation of Section 138 of the Act regarding the presentation timeframe. 4. Analysis of conflicting judgments from different High Courts. Analysis: 1. The judgment addresses the quashing of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, brought by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner sought to quash the complaints and the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Karnal. The disputes arose from post-dated cheques issued as part of a compromise agreement between the parties. 2. A crucial issue in the case was the dispute over the date of issuance of the post-dated cheques. The petitioner claimed the cheques were issued on March 12, 1990, while the respondent asserted they were issued on March 5, 1990. The compromise deed stipulated the issuance of post-dated cheques simultaneously with the transfer of shares, regardless of the exact date of issuance. 3. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Section 138 of the Act concerning the presentation timeframe of cheques. The court emphasized that the cheque must be presented within six months from the date it is drawn, regardless of the date written on the cheque. The legislative intent behind this provision was highlighted, emphasizing strict construction of the penal provision and the need to fulfill all conditions for the offense to be committed. 4. The judgment references conflicting views from different High Courts on the issue of post-dated cheques and their treatment under Section 138 of the Act. While the Madras High Court emphasized that such cheques fall outside the purview of Section 138 if presented after six months, the Kerala High Court took a different stance, considering post-dated cheques as drawn on the date they bear. The judgment aligns with the Madras High Court's interpretation, emphasizing the date of making a cheque and the presumption under Section 118 regarding the date it carries. 5. Ultimately, the court concluded that since the disputed cheques were presented to the bank after six months from the date of making, no criminal offense under Section 138 of the Act was established. Consequently, the court accepted the criminal miscellaneous petitions, quashing the complaints and summoning orders issued against the petitioner.
|
