2020 (9) TMI 216 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - presence of legal liability or not - Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act - petitioner submits that he would be satisfied if the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Magistrate concerned and move an appropriate application by raising all the pleas, as raised in the present petition. HELD THAT - This petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned and move an application by raising all the pleas, as raised in the present petition. On his doing so, the Magistrate concerned will decide such application after taking into consideration the pleas raised therein by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a stipulated period.

Summary

Issues:
Petition for quashing FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash FIR No. 103 dated 09.03.2020, registered under Sections 406 and 420 IPC at Police Station Ladwa, District Kurukshetra, along with all consequential proceedings. The petitioner claimed to have been falsely implicated, stating that the respondent-complainant borrowed ?15 lacs and issued a dishonored cheque to discharge the debt. The petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to the summoning of the complainant by the trial Magistrate. The petitioner alleged the FIR was a counter-blast to avoid repayment, while the respondent argued the cheque was misplaced, and lending such a large amount without proper cause was questionable, especially given the petitioner's occupation as a commission agent.

The Court considered the petitioner's prayer for quashing the FIR and referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya case, emphasizing the Magistrate's wide powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to ensure a fair investigation at all stages of the case. The Court noted that the power of the Magistrate to order further investigation continues until the trial commences, and such discretion is crucial to prevent injustice. The Court, in line with the Supreme Court's ruling, declined to quash the FIR based on the principles of fair investigation and justice.

Given the circumstances, the petitioner's counsel requested liberty to approach the Magistrate with the same pleas raised in the petition. The Court disposed of the petition, granting the petitioner the liberty to move an application before the Magistrate concerned, who would then decide on the application considering the raised pleas within a specified period. This approach aimed to allow the petitioner to present their case before the Magistrate for further consideration in accordance with the law and judicial principles.