2007 (3) TMI 824 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved:
The petition seeks quashing of criminal proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. based on allegations of offenses u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The main issues revolve around whether the cheques were issued by the petitioner, the existence of a legally recoverable debt, and the jurisdiction of the court to quash criminal proceedings.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Allegations of Issuance of Cheques and Debt Existence
The petitioner denied owing any amount to the complainant, claiming the cheques were stolen and presented without authorization. The petitioner had informed the police about the theft. The petitioner argued that the complaint lacked legally recoverable debt or liability, thus should be quashed.

Issue 2: Court's Jurisdiction to Quash Criminal Proceedings
The court clarified that while issuing summoning orders for Section 138 offenses, it must ensure the allegations broadly conform to the legal provisions. The court has the power u/s 482 to quash proceedings but should avoid adjudicating disputed facts. Quashing may be appropriate if the complaint lacks essential facts, the trial court lacks jurisdiction, or mala fides are evident.

Precedents and Legal Interpretation
The court referred to precedents emphasizing that the High Court should not pre-judge the existence of a legally enforceable debt in a complaint. The court should not delve into disputed factual matters at the quashing stage. The veracity of the complainant's assertion regarding the cheques should be left for trial consideration.

Conclusion
The court dismissed the petition, stating that no relief could be granted in the current proceedings. The petitioner's defenses regarding the issuance of cheques and absence of liability due to theft are matters for trial consideration and do not warrant interference u/s 482 Cr.P.C.