2022 (4) TMI 1201 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - rebuttal of presumption - in the complaint filed u/s 138 of NI Act, the evidence of petitioner is concluded as well as right to cross-examination of respondent has already been struck off and defence has already been closed - Sections 138 and 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT - It appears that the complaint was filed by respondent in the year 2016 and cognizance has been taken by Magistrate concerned vide order dated 13-11-2021 i.e. after five years. Respondent did not properly pursue the matter and statements of respondent as well as his witnesses were recorded u/Ss 200 and 202 of CrPC in the year 2021 and the JMFC concerned vide order dated 13/11/2021 has taken cognizance for offence under Sections 420, 468, 469 and 471 of IPC against petitioner. It is also apparent from the record that the allegation made by respondent is with regard to theft of his cheque which is the subject-matter of complaint registered u/s 138 of NI Act by petitioner. Aforesaid modus operandi on the part of respondent reflects clear mala fide to escape from the liability of issuance of cheque by him and it is a clear abuse of process of Court and same could not be sustained in the eyes of law. Therefore, the order of taking cognizance passed by Court of JMFC is perverse and same deserves to be quashed. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashment of Complaint under Sections 200 & 202 CrPC
2. Set aside the order passed by Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision
3. Delay in trial proceedings
4. Abuse of process of law

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashment of Complaint under Sections 200 & 202 CrPC
The petitioner sought quashment of a complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 200 & 202 of the CrPC. The petitioner alleged that the respondent's complaint was false and filed as a counter-blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The petitioner argued that the respondent's actions were an abuse of the legal process. The court reviewed the history of applications and revisions filed by both parties and concluded that the respondent's complaint was mala fide and an abuse of the legal system. The court quashed the complaint filed by the respondent under Sections 200 & 202 CrPC.

Issue 2: Set aside the order passed by Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision
The petitioner also challenged the order passed by the Sessions Judge in a Criminal Revision filed by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the Sessions Judge erred in allowing the revision filed by the respondent. The court examined the facts and legal arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the respondent's actions were aimed at avoiding liability for the issued cheque and constituted an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the court set aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision.

Issue 3: Delay in trial proceedings
The petitioner raised concerns about the delay in the trial proceedings initiated by the respondent's complaint under Sections 200 & 202 of the CrPC. The court noted the timeline of events and observed that the respondent had not diligently pursued the matter, leading to significant delays in the legal process. The court found that the delay was unjustified and reflected poorly on the respondent's conduct. The court emphasized the importance of timely and efficient legal proceedings.

Issue 4: Abuse of process of law
The overarching issue in this case was the abuse of the legal process by the respondent. The court highlighted the respondent's repeated attempts to circumvent liability for the issued cheque through false complaints and delaying tactics. The court concluded that the respondent's actions were mala fide and constituted a clear abuse of the legal system. As a result, the court quashed the complaint filed by the respondent and affirmed the order rejecting the respondent's application under Section 223 of the CrPC.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the complaint under Sections 200 & 202 CrPC and setting aside the order passed by the Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of legal proceedings and preventing the abuse of the legal system.