9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Quashment of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the order summoning the petitioners. Analysis: 1. The petitioners sought to quash a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and the order summoning them based on three dishonored cheques issued in discharge of a loan. The complaint alleged the cheques were dishonored with the remark "payment stopped by drawer" and that a notice under Section 138 was issued but not honored by the petitioners. 2. The petitioners argued that the cheques were not dishonored due to insufficient funds but due to stop payment instructions. They contended that the Metropolitan Magistrate should have verified the bank records before summoning them and claimed the cheques were issued without consideration. 3. The Supreme Court's ruling in M.M.T.C. Ltd. v. M/s. Medchal Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. clarified the applicability of Section 138 in cases of dishonor due to "payment stopped by drawer." The Court held that the complaint could not be quashed solely on the ground of absence of pre-existing debt and that the burden of proof lies with the accused to show sufficient funds existed at the time of dishonor. 4. The Supreme Court further emphasized that even if a cheque is dishonored due to stop payment instructions, an offense under Section 138 can be established. The Court outlined that the presumption under Section 139 applies, requiring the accused to prove the stop payment was not due to insufficient funds. The burden of proof rests with the accused to demonstrate the existence of sufficient funds at the time of presentation. 5. The complaint did not indicate the presence of sufficient funds, and the stop payment was deemed adequate for summoning the petitioners. The Court, in reviewing the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C., found no inherent defects and deemed the allegations substantiated by pre-summoning evidence sufficient for summoning. 6. Despite the petitioners presenting a bank certificate showing sufficient funds, the Court could not delve into the evidence or inquire about pre-existing debt based on the Supreme Court's precedent. The judgment in MMTC (Supra) prevented the Court from calling for such evidence, emphasizing the accused's burden to prove the absence of liability. 7. Ultimately, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacked merit, leading to its dismissal by the Court. The dismissal was based on the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint and the established legal principles regarding dishonor of cheques and the burden of proof on the accused.
|
