9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (7) TMI 1248 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - challenge to summoning order and the complaint pending before the learned Trial Court - exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - The principles of exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. were laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, 2023 (7) TMI 1436 - SUPREME COURT wherein it was observed that ' Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence.' It was laid down in CBI v. Aryan Singh, 2023 (4) TMI 1330 - SUPREME COURT , that the High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The allegations are required to be proved during the trial by leading evidence. In the present case, the learned Magistrate passed an order after going through the cheque, notice, preliminary evidence in the form of an affidavit and other documents attached to the complaint. He was satisfied that there existed sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Section 138 of N.I.Act. Hence, the accused was ordered to be summoned. It is apparent from the order that the learned Magistrate had not passed the order simply based on evidence but he has satisfied him by going through the documents, which is sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. as laid down in In re Expeditious Trial of Cases 2021 (4) TMI 702 - SUPREME COURT . Hence, the submission that there was noncompliance with section 202 of Cr.P.C. is not acceptable. The present petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order 2. Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability 3. Conducting Inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 4. Issuance of Summons without Detailed Order 5. Consideration of Settlement and Additional Documents Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of Complaint and Summoning Order: The petitioner sought the quashing of the complaint and summoning order dated 03.02.2018, asserting that the goods supplied were of inferior quality, and a settlement had been reached between the parties. The court referenced the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Supriya Jain v. State of Haryana, emphasizing that the power to quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of rare cases. The court must ensure that the allegations prima facie establish the offence and should not conduct a mini-trial at this stage. The court concluded that the summoning order was based on sufficient grounds and did not warrant quashing. 2. Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability: The petitioner contended that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability as the goods supplied were of inferior quality and a settlement had been reached. The court referred to Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presume that every negotiable instrument was made for consideration and issued in discharge of any debt or liability. The court cited Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh, affirming that the presumption of consideration is mandatory unless rebutted by the accused. The court found that the petitioner's contention did not hold at this stage, and the presumption of consideration stood. 3. Conducting Inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.: The petitioner argued that the learned Trial Court erred in summoning the accused without conducting an inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C., which is mandatory. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881, which clarified that the Magistrate could satisfy himself by examining documents without necessarily recording witness statements. The court found that the Magistrate had perused the relevant documents and was satisfied with the sufficiency of grounds to proceed, thus complying with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. 4. Issuance of Summons without Detailed Order: The petitioner claimed that the summoning order was invalid as it lacked detailed reasons. The court referred to U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Mohan Meakins Ltd., which stated that there is no legal requirement for a Magistrate to record detailed reasons while issuing summons. The court reiterated this position, emphasizing that the Magistrate's satisfaction based on the documents was sufficient for issuing the summoning order. 5. Consideration of Settlement and Additional Documents: The petitioner submitted that the matter had been settled between the parties and presented additional documents to support this claim. The court noted that it is impermissible to consider new evidence or documents not part of the original complaint in proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The court cited multiple judgments, including MCD v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka, affirming that the court must rely solely on the complaint and accompanying documents. The court found that the settlement occurred after the issuance of the cheque, and thus, the complaint was valid. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The summoning order was based on sufficient grounds, and the Magistrate had complied with the requirements under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that the presumption of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood unless rebutted during the trial. The observations made were confined to the disposal of the petition and would not affect the merits of the case.
|
