2018 (9) TMI 994 - HC - Indian Laws

Misuse of Blank Cheque - section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Trial has reached the penultimate stage - Held that - The case has been periodically adjourned for service of summons, finally, the accused had appeared before the Trial Court namely the Judicial Magistrate Curt No.I, Puducherrry, as it could be seen by the adjudication dated 16.04.2010 and the case thereafter periodically adjourned for trial and finally, the evidence of the complainant was recorded by way of proof affidavit on 01.12.2010 and Ex.P1 to P6 have been marked. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed the above quash petition on 08.04.2011 due to which the trial is pending. In the meanwhile, the records have been called for and the trial in C.C.No.78 of 2009 had been successfully put on hold for the past seven years - The learned counsel for the petitioner sensing that this Court is not accepting the contention of the petitioner, though initially appeared and made his submissions, thereafter, failed to appear before this Court, on subsequent dates despite the name of the petitioner being printed in the cause list The contention of the petitioner does not merit any consideration and the quash petition is dismissed, since the matter is pending from the year 2011, without any progress and the Trial has reached a penultimate stage - The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and report compliance.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash criminal proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act based on misuse of blank cheques, repeated cognizance by the Lower Court, delay in trial proceedings, and request for speedy trial.

Analysis:
The petitioner, accused in C.C.No.78 of 2009, filed a petition seeking to quash all proceedings in the case pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Puducherry. The petitioner contended that the respondent's husband, who invested in the petitioner's business, misused a blank cheque leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 138. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's husband unfairly demanded repayment of a settled amount, triggering the legal dispute. Additionally, the petitioner claimed that the Lower Court's repeated cognizance in C.C.No.250 of 2008 and subsequently in C.C.No.78 of 2009 was unlawful, causing protraction of proceedings.

The respondent's counsel argued against the quash petition, alleging that the petitioner intended to prolong the proceedings. The respondent denied the petitioner's claims of multiple cases and insisted that only one case was filed. Reports from the Lower Court confirmed the filing date of the complaint and the progression of the case, refuting the petitioner's assertions of multiple cases. The Trial Court had recorded the complainant's evidence and marked exhibits, indicating progress in the trial.

Upon review of the records, the High Court found that the case was pending since 2011 without significant progress, despite the trial being at a penultimate stage. The Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within three months and report compliance. The petitioner's delay in appearance before the High Court and the lack of merit in the petitioner's contentions led to the dismissal of the quash petition. The Court emphasized the need for a speedy trial and ordered the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the quash petition, highlighting the prolonged pendency of the case since 2011 and the necessity for the Trial Court to conclude the trial promptly. The directive for a speedy trial within three months aimed to expedite the legal process and bring closure to the prolonged litigation.