2023 (5) TMI 800 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - complainant has admitted that he had signed the cheques but fraud was committed in filling up those cheques and presenting the same before the Bank - HELD THAT - It is admission of respondent No. 2 that he had issued the signed cheque which is subject mater of the complaint case filed by the petitioner. The cheques were for refund of loan. Evidently, the petitioner cannot be allowed to be prosecuted for bald allegations, burden to prove whereof is on respondent No. 2 in view of admission of respondent No. 2 that he had signed the cheque which got dishonoured - Likewise, respondent No. 2 has admittedly acted in violation of mandate of The Income Tax Act (as contained in Section 269 ST of The Income Tax Act and Section 269SS of the said Act), therefore, respondent No. 2 cannot be allowed to get protection of his unlawful act of dealing with cash above the ceiling amount prescribed under the law. If the impugned FIR and proceedings arising out of the same is allowed to be sustained, it would amount in protecting and recognizing illegal acts of respondent No. 2. The impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings stands hereby quashed to prevent miscarriage of justice and this petition is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The petitioner sought quashment of FIR registered for offence under Section 420 IPC on grounds of malicious institution and vengeance. The challenge stemmed from a complaint case filed by the petitioner against the respondent for an offence under Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, leading to bail for the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent filed a complaint case resulting in the impugned FIR.

Details:
The impugned FIR alleged that the petitioner, with dishonest intention, fraudulently filled up a cheque signed by the respondent and presented it before the Bank, leading to its dishonour. The petitioner contended that provisions under Section 139 of The Negotiable Instruments Act should be applied, shifting the burden to the respondent to prove otherwise. The petitioner argued that the respondent's violation of The Income Tax Act cannot be shielded under the law.

Court's Analysis:
The Court noted that even if the FIR's averments were true, it was an admission by the respondent that he had issued the cheque in question for a loan refund. Citing legal precedents, the Court emphasized the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, stating that the burden to disprove it lies on the accused. The Court highlighted that the petitioner could not be prosecuted based on bald allegations, especially when the respondent had admitted to signing the dishonoured cheque.

Conclusion:
Considering the unlawful acts of the respondent and the burden of proof under the law, the Court quashed the impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court allowed the petition, thereby providing relief to the petitioner based on the legal analysis and circumstances presented during the case.