2020 (1) TMI 390 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - issue raised by the petitioner in the present petition cannot be appreciated at this stage as the same can only be adjudicated at the time of trial - HELD THAT - It is well settled that for the purpose of quashing of a complaint, the High Court cannot look into the defence of the accused. The Court is only required to see whether on the basis of the averments made in the complaint and the relevant particulars produced by the Complainant, there are grounds for proceeding against the accused. Inherent power of quashing criminal proceedings should be exercised very sparingly and with great circumspection. It does not confer on the court to act arbitrarily as per its own whims and caprice. The basic law is that the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act cannot be quashed by High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C, if disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after respective evidence is led by the parties before the trial court. It cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error and / or illegality in issuing summons for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, or the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition to quash criminal proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

Analysis:
1. Petitioner's Argument:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, arguing that the opposite party failed to establish the petitioner's liability for payment. The petitioner's counsel contended that the complaint lacked evidence of any debt or liability, emphasizing that the cheque amount was not proven to be payable by the petitioner. It was asserted that the respondent aimed to exploit statutory provisions to extract extra money from the petitioner, claiming no case under section 138 was established, and the summoning order was a misuse of the court's process.

2. State's Argument:
The State vehemently opposed the petitioner's submissions, asserting that the trial court summoned the petitioner after due consideration and examination of evidence. It was highlighted that a cheque of ?33.00 lakhs issued by the petitioner to the respondent formed the basis of the complaint. The State argued that the allegations in the complaint were factual and required adjudication by the trial court, which was satisfied with the complaint's contentions and consequently issued summons.

3. Judicial Analysis:
The court noted that the petitioner's contentions could only be determined during trial and not at the petition stage. The complaint's averments prima facie satisfied the requirements of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but their truthfulness could only be assessed during trial. The court emphasized that the defense of the accused should not be considered at the quashing stage, and the focus should be on whether grounds for proceeding against the accused existed based on the complaint's averments and relevant particulars. Quashing criminal proceedings should be done sparingly and with caution, without delving into the merits prematurely.

4. Decision:
The court concluded that the trial court did not err in issuing summons under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It emphasized that disputed factual issues should be resolved during trial, and the High Court should not quash complaints involving such disputes under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the petition lacked merit and was dismissed accordingly.

In summary, the court upheld the trial court's decision to issue summons for the offense under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing that disputed factual matters should be resolved during trial, and quashing of complaints should be done sparingly and cautiously.