2022 (5) TMI 1299 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - validity of summon order - signed and unsigned cheques going missing - HELD THAT - Since this is a case where, while disposing of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the summoning orders on the very same grounds was disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, permitting him to raise these grounds before the learned Trial Court, all that this Court can now consider is whether the conclusions drawn by the learned Trial Court are in any way perverse, misplaced or based on no material. With regard to the other argument that the petitioner has already resigned or that the cheques were lost from his possession, these were rightly held by the learned Trial Court to be the defence of the petitioner to be established by him. Even before this Court, the petitioner relies only on his resignation letter, which has been generally addressed to the Board of Directors, with copies to another Director, the Registrar of Companies (ROC) and the Chartered Accountant. But, there is nothing to show that this was accepted by the Board of Directors and the necessary corrections carried out in the records of the ROC. Of course, the petitioner would have an opportunity to establish all these facts before the learned Trial Court. There being no error or perversity in the impugned order, no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to summoning order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the summoning order dated 18th November, 2021, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner sought the quashing of the summoning order in Complaint Case No.9486/2018 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The order in question was the one dismissing the petitioner's application seeking discharge, not the summoning order itself. The complaint was based on a dishonored cheque issued by the petitioner for Rs.24 lakhs. The petitioner raised various grounds before the Trial Court, including the claim that the complainant misused missing/stolen cheques, the cheques were not destroyed, and the petitioner was not the Director of the company at the time of the offense. The petitioner also argued that the complainant's daughter, who was the Director, should have been impleaded instead. The Trial Court held that the petitioner's defenses should be established during trial, and the loss of the cheque could only be ascertained during the course of the proceedings.

The petitioner's counsel relied on previous judgments to support their arguments, claiming that the case against the petitioner was mala fide and stage-managed. They argued that specific averments against the petitioner were lacking in the complaint, and therefore, the petitioner should be discharged. However, the Trial Court found that the complaint did mention the petitioner as the signatory of the post-dated cheque, making him responsible under the N.I. Act. The Court also noted that the petitioner's resignation and the reported loss of the cheque were defenses to be proven by the petitioner during the trial. The Trial Court's order was deemed well-reasoned, considering the facts and applicable law. The Court concluded that there was no error or perversity in the Trial Court's decision, and thus, no interference was warranted under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

In summary, the High Court dismissed the petition challenging the Trial Court's order, emphasizing that the Trial Court would determine the case's merits after due trial. The High Court found no grounds for interference in the Trial Court's decision, highlighting that the petitioner's defenses and claims could be addressed during the trial proceedings.