9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 370 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - existence of legally enforceable debt or not - main ground that has been focused by the petitioner in this petition is the strained relationship - possibility for the petitioner to have borrowed a sum during strained relationship - HELD THAT - There was a continuous trouble between the parties, which caused strained relationship, not only between the respondent and the petitioner, but also between the husband and wife - The signature of the petitioner in the disputed document is not denied. It is the duty of the petitioner to prove her case before the trial court by setting out the facts and circumstances. The disputed factual aspects cannot be gone into by this court at this stage. Except the factual issues, no other legal ground has been raised by the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner is that the cheque was given as security, when the amount was invested in the share business conducted by the respondent; But later the business ran into loss. Absolutely, there was no binding liability between the parties - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. INDUS AIRWAYS PVT. LTD. OTHERS VERSUS M/S. MAGNUM AVIATION PVT. LTD. ANOTHER 2014 (4) TMI 464 - SUPREME COURT has observed that when there was not existing liability on the date of issue of the cheque, the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may not be attracted. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law. Whether there was existing liability on the date of issue of the cheque, is a matter for consideration by the trial court through evidence. The factual circumstances are entirely different - Here, it is the specific case of the respondent that on the particular date mentioned in the petition, this petitioner received Rs.9,50,000/- to meet out her requirement in the business. So when that is being so, as mentioned earlier, whether it was a security document or not cannot be a matter for consideration sitting in 482 Cr.P.C jurisdiction. The statement of account of the petitioner has been filed for the purpose of argument that the date of presentation of the cheque is not mentioned in the statement of the accounts. It is a matter for evidence. So, improbable question cannot be taken for discussion in this petition - Petition dismissed.
Issues:
Petition seeking quashment of case in STC No.160 of 2018 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai. Analysis: The prosecution alleged offenses under sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent, a de-facto complainant, claimed the petitioner, her nephew, borrowed Rs.9,50,000 on 13/09/2015, issuing a post-dated cheque for repayment on 14/09/2017. The cheque bounced due to insufficient funds, leading to a private complaint and subsequent case registration. The petitioner sought quashment citing a dispute with the complainant, alleging false complaints due to business losses and strained relationships. The respondent's marriage issues and divorce petition were highlighted, claiming the loan was impossible due to strained relations. Despite notice, the respondent did not appear, leading to the petitioner's argument on strained relationships and impossibility of borrowing the loan amount. Previous cases between the parties were referenced, indicating a history of money disputes. The petitioner contended the cheque was security for a failed business investment by the respondent, denying any binding liability. Legal judgments were cited to support this argument. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the need for trial court consideration of existing liability at the time of cheque issuance. The statement of account and presentation date of the cheque were deemed evidentiary matters, not suitable for current jurisdiction. The court directed expedited trial proceedings within five months due to the case's age, closing all related miscellaneous petitions.
|
