2020 (11) TMI 399 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - discharge of any debt or liability - It is thus contended that as the cheque was given only towards the security and not towards discharge of any debt or liability, no offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was committed by the petitioner - HELD THAT - In so far as issuance of blank cheque is concerned, in BIR SINGH VERSUS MUKESH KUMAR 2019 (2) TMI 547 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that if a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee towards some payment, the filling up of an amount and other particulars by the payee would not invalidate the cheque. The onus to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or liability would still remain on the accused which is to be discharged by adducing evidence. There are no merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to establish in the trial that the cheque in question was not given towards discharge of any debt or liability - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Interpretation of the purpose of a cheque given as security in a business agreement.
3. Disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication in trial under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a summoning order dated 05.09.2018 in a case related to dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the NI Act. The petitioner argued that the cheque was given as security, not towards discharge of any debt. The court noted disputed factual issues and referred to precedents stating that such defenses should be adjudicated in trial, not in proceedings under Section 482. The court set aside the order as it delved into disputed facts, concluding that reasonable suspicion was not a ground for exercising powers under Section 482.

2. The interpretation of a cheque given as security in a business agreement was central to the case. The petitioner contended that the cheque was for security, not towards any liability. The court analyzed the agreement terms and noted that while two other cheques were explicitly for security deposits, the purpose of the disputed cheque was not specified. The court highlighted the need for evidence to determine if the cheque was towards discharge of debt. Precedents emphasized that such factual issues should be resolved in trial, not in pre-trial proceedings under Section 482.

3. The judgment emphasized that disputed questions of fact, like the purpose of the cheque in question, should be resolved in trial, not in proceedings under Section 482. Precedents cited underscored the need for evidence and trial proceedings to determine issues such as whether a cheque was given as security or towards discharge of a debt. The court upheld the impugned order, stating that the petitioner must establish in trial that the cheque was not for any debt or liability. The petitioner's request for a virtual appearance due to the pandemic was also addressed, allowing for a video conference appearance on a specified date.