9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 355 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of bail - Dishonor of Cheque - de-facto complainant did not lodge any complaint contemporaneously - ingredients under Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) satisfied or not - HELD THAT - The materials in the case diary discloses that, the petitioner received a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- in aggregate from the de-facto complainant through NEFT payment, cheque payment and cash payment. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner issued two cheques dated May 11, 2016 and May 15, 2016 aggregating to a sum of ₹ 10,00,000/- and that those two cheques were dishonoured them. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of the Act of 1881, the prayer for anticipatory bail should be granted. The two cheques are admittedly of 2016 with no notice under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 being placed on record. In LALITA KUMARI VERSUS GOVT. OF UP. ORS. 2013 (11) TMI 1520 - SUPREME COURT , the Supreme Court is of the view that where information received does not disclose cognizable offence a preliminary inquiry may be conducted. In the facts of the present case, the police complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant against the petitioner, in substance, cannot be said not to disclose commission of a cognizable offence. Section 406 of the IPC is a continuing offence. It cannot be said with any certitude that there is no dishonest intention of the petitioner to deceive the de facto complainant. Considering the gravity of the offence and the involvement of the petitioner therein and considering the fact that the petitioner did not respond to the notices issued under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the requirement of the prosecution for custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be ruled out - anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the petitioner - application rejected.
Issues:
1. Bail application based on dishonored cheques and delay in complaint. 2. Allegations of fraud, non-payment, and changing contact details. 3. Legal provisions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 4. Interpretation of Sections 138, 143A, and 148 of the Act. 5. Application of Sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 6. Consideration of anticipatory bail in light of Supreme Court precedents. 7. Significance of custodial interrogation and non-response to notices. Analysis: The petitioner sought bail in a case involving dishonored cheques totaling ?10,00,000 from 2016. The petitioner argued that the de-facto complainant failed to issue timely notices under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, limiting their claim to 20% compensation. Citing Supreme Court cases, the petitioner claimed the complaint was time-barred in civil courts and lacked ingredients under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. The State highlighted the petitioner's frequent address changes and non-response to legal notices, supporting the need for custodial interrogation. The de-facto complainant alleged fraud and non-payment by the petitioner, who delayed police complaints by assuring payment. When the petitioner changed contact details, a complaint was finally lodged. The de-facto complainant argued that Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC were applicable, emphasizing the continuing nature of the offense. The petitioner countered, claiming illness prevented a response to legal notices. The court noted the FIR accusing the petitioner of fraud and evasion of payment. Despite the petitioner's claims of payment through various means, the dishonored cheques remained unresolved. Referring to the Act of 1881 and Supreme Court precedents, the court found the absence of Section 138 notices crucial. The court also referenced a Supreme Court case dismissing a complaint due to disputes over liability and a belated complaint, contrasting it with the present case. Considering the gravity of the offense, lack of response to legal notices, and potential need for custodial interrogation, the court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The court emphasized the importance of investigating the allegations further, leading to the rejection of the bail application. In conclusion, the court's decision was based on the legal provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the application of Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC in the case. The denial of anticipatory bail was justified due to the seriousness of the allegations, lack of response to legal notices, and the potential need for custodial interrogation.
|
