2014 (8) TMI 1231 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - cheque was issued by the petitioner or not - allegation raised in the complaint filed against the wife of the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant is that 5 cheques were stolen and the occurrence of the offence was stated to be between August 2011 and 27.3.2012 - HELD THAT - This court is not inclined to accept such contention raised on the side of the petitioner/accused - Here is the case, wherein the private complaint was filed on 30.7.2012 stating that the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- was paid by way of cash to the accused and the cheque bearing No.114866 dated 5.6.2012 drawn on ICICI bank issued by the accused for the same, assuring that the same will be honoured on presentation. When it was presented for collection on 5.6.2012, it was returned dishonoured for the reason of Account Blocked situation through return memo dated 7.6.2012 etc. Whereas, the complaint regarding missing of cheques was given only on 19.12.2013. Had it been true, the petitioner would have thought it fit to give complaint during 2011 itself. Though the date of occurrence was between 2011 and March 2012, the complaint was given on 19.12.2013 much after the issuance of statutory notice. This court is not inclined to accept the theory as put forth before this court, to quash the proceedings - the same is available by way of defence to the accused to be agitated before the trial court and the truthfulness or otherwise of such theory cannot be gone into by this court in this quash petition, which is summary in nature. This court feels that it is not a fit case to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Accused's petition to quash proceedings in CC.No.105 of 2013, based on the claim that the cheque was stolen and misused by the wife of the complainant.

Analysis:
1. The accused filed a petition seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No.105 of 2013, contending that the cheque in question was not issued by him but was stolen by the wife of the complainant. The accused claimed that a complaint had been lodged against the wife and the complainant for the theft of multiple cheques, including the one in question. The FIR related to the theft was registered on 19.12.2013, alleging that the theft occurred between August 2011 and March 2012.

2. The court, however, was not convinced by the accused's argument. It noted that a private complaint had been filed on 30.7.2012, stating that a specific amount was paid to the accused in cash, and a cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured due to an "Account Blocked situation." The complaint about the missing cheques was made much later, on 19.12.2013, after the statutory notice had been issued. The court found it unlikely that the accused, if innocent, would have delayed filing a complaint until after the statutory notice had been sent, despite the alleged theft occurring earlier.

3. The court emphasized that the accused's defense regarding the stolen cheque could be raised during the trial proceedings and that the truthfulness of the claim could be examined by the trial court. Given that the trial had already commenced, with the complainant's evidence being closed, the court deemed it inappropriate to quash the proceedings at that stage. The court held that the accused's defense could be presented and evaluated during the trial, rather than in a summary quash petition.

4. In conclusion, the court rejected the accused's petition to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that the defense regarding the stolen cheque could be raised and assessed during the trial proceedings. The court considered the stage of the trial, where the complainant's evidence had already been closed, as not suitable for quashing the ongoing proceedings against the accused.