2022 (2) TMI 1162 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - seeking to call for the records and quash the private complaint - primary ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondent/complainant himself admits in his complaint that a cheque bearing No. 844386 dated 06.06.2016, was issued for a sum of ₹ 14,50,991/- - HELD THAT - The points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner can be raised only during the trial and not to be decided in this quash application. This Court is not inclined to entertain this Criminal Original Petition. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of the disposal of the above petition and the trial Court uninfluenced by the above observations may decide the case on merits accordingly. Finding that the case is kept pending for a long time, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to quash private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner argued that the complaint should be quashed as the cheque amount exceeded the admitted liability. The petitioner contended that for Section 138 NI Act to apply, the cheque must be drawn to discharge a liability, which in this case was &8377; 8,50,991, not the full amount of the cheque. The petitioner cited the Angu Parameswari Textiles case to support this argument.

The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the petitioner's argument should be addressed during the trial and not in a quash application. Referring to the Uttam Ram case, the respondent emphasized that discrepancies in the amount due should not dismiss a complaint if the cheque was issued for a crystallized amount, as seen in Kishan Rao, Kumar Exports, and Rangappa cases. The respondent highlighted that the defence of the cheque being misplaced was not sufficient to quash the complaint.

The Court concluded that the issues raised by the petitioner should be dealt with during the trial and not in the quash application. The Court directed the trial Court to complete the trial within three months, emphasizing that its observations were only for the purpose of the petition's disposal. Consequently, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.