9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction 2. Inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C. 3. Cheques given as Security 4. Clubbing of more than three Cheques in a Complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Territorial Jurisdiction: The petitioners challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court as the cheques were drawn at Bank of Baroda, Faridabad. However, this ground was not pressed during the hearing due to the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Nishant Aggarwal v. Kailash Kumar Sharma, 2013 (7) SCALE 753. Inquiry u/s 202 Cr.P.C.: The petitioners contended that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not conduct any inquiry or investigation as required u/s 202 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed this ground, stating that the Magistrate considered the complainant's affidavit and documentary evidence, making further inquiry unnecessary. The case was deemed covered by Abhishek Agrawalla v. Boortmalt NV, (2011) 122 DRJ 42, which clarifies that no further inquiry is needed when the offence is evident from documents. Cheques given as Security: The petitioners argued that the cheques were given as security, not in discharge of any legal liability. The court noted that this defense was not presented before the Magistrate at the time of issuing summons. There is a legal presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt or liability unless rebutted by the petitioners. The appropriate stage to rebut this presumption is before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, not u/s 482 Cr.P.C. Clubbing of more than three Cheques in a Complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act: The petitioners argued that more than three cheques cannot be clubbed in proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court found no merit in this contention, stating that the cause of action for filing a complaint u/s 138 is the service of notice, not the dishonour of cheques. Since a single notice was issued for all four dishonoured cheques, Section 219 Cr.P.C. is not applicable. This view is supported by various judgments, including Trichandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants and Rajendra B. Choudhari v. State of Maharashtra. Conclusion: The court found no merit in the petition, deeming it a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law. The petitioners delayed the complaint for over two years. The petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs. 30,000 to be paid to the respondent within four weeks. The ex-parte interim order dated 17th August, 2011, was vacated, and the Metropolitan Magistrate was directed to resume proceedings and complete the trial within six months. The parties were instructed to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 18th November, 2013.
|
