1994 (1) TMI 311 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash a case under Section 482, Cr.P.C. involving a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonored cheques.

Analysis:
1. The accused filed a petition seeking to quash a case where a complaint was filed against them for dishonored cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged that the accused issued five cheques which were dishonored, leading to legal action by the complainant.

2. The accused raised several arguments through their counsel, including that the cheques were post-dated and presented beyond six months from issuance, the accused was adjudged insolvent, the statutory notice demanded more than the cheque amount, no allegation of insufficient funds was made, and the complaint involved more than three cheques.

3. The court addressed each argument individually. Firstly, regarding the post-dated cheques, the court referred to a Supreme Court ruling stating that the six-month period is calculated from the date shown on the cheque, not the date of presentation, thus rejecting the argument.

4. Secondly, the court ruled that the accused being insolvent did not absolve them from liability under Section 138 of the Act, dismissing this argument as well.

5. Thirdly, the court held that a notice demanding more than the cheque amount was not invalid, as long as the cheque amount was also demanded, satisfying the legal requirements.

6. Fourthly, the court found that the complaint did allege insufficiency of funds in the bank to honor the cheques, refuting the argument to the contrary.

7. Lastly, the court addressed the issue of multiple cheques in the complaint, citing a previous judgment where it was held that while more than three transactions were included, the prosecution could proceed but the complainant had to choose which cheque to pursue.

8. Ultimately, the court dismissed all the arguments raised by the accused and upheld the complaint, stating that none of the submissions warranted quashing the case, and therefore, the petition was dismissed.