2015 (9) TMI 1755 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - cheque in question had been issued qua a time barred debt or not - rebuttal of presumption - HELD THAT - Complainant in support of his case, led his preliminary evidence and the petitioner has been summoned to face the trial by the Trial court. It is not the case of the petitioner that the cheque in question was not signed/issued by him. The fact that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioner leads to a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the said presumption is rebuttable and the same can be rebutted by the petitioner by leading evidence. At this stage, without there being any evidence on record, it cannot be held that the cheque drawn by the petitioner was in respect of a debt or liability which was not legally enforceable. The plea raised by the petitioner that the cheque in question was issued on account of a time barred debt can be gone into by the Trial Court after the parties lead their evidence with regard to their respective pleas. However, at this stage, it would not be just and expedient to quash the criminal proceedings at the very threshold by presuming that the cheque in question had been issued qua a time barred debt. No ground for interference by this Court is made out - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing of criminal complaint under Section 138 of NI Act on the basis of time-barred debt.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on the argument that the cheque in question was issued regarding a time-barred debt. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support this claim. The court considered the evidence presented and noted that the complainant had advanced a loan to the petitioner, who subsequently issued a cheque that was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The court highlighted that the presumption of a legally enforceable debt arising from the issuance of the cheque could be rebutted by evidence. The court emphasized that the question of whether the debt was time-barred should be determined after the parties present their evidence in the trial court. Quashing the criminal proceedings at the initial stage was deemed premature, as the complainant had yet to fully support their case. The court referenced a Supreme Court judgment to underscore that the determination of whether the debt was time-barred is a mixed question of law and fact that should be decided after the evidence is presented.

The court also addressed the petitioner's reliance on legal judgments in support of their argument. However, the court emphasized that the judgments cited were not applicable in this case, as the issue of whether the debt was time-barred required a detailed examination during the trial. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision that criticized the High Court for prematurely quashing proceedings based on the debt being time-barred, emphasizing that such determinations should be made after the evidence is adduced. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, stating that there were no grounds for interference and directed the trial court to proceed with the case as per the law.