2025 (1) TMI 984 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - Cognizance for offence under Sections 420 467 468 471 and 120-B of IPC - case of applicant is that the complaint filed by the respondent is misconceived and the Magistrate should not have taken up the cognizance - complaint in question was filed by way of counter blast and the complaint suffers from malafide - presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Whether the prosecution can be quashed on the ground of delay or not? Presumption u/s 139 of NI Act - HELD THAT - There is a presumption that whenever a cheque is issued then it must have been issued in discharge of legal liability. However that presumption is rebuttable. It is the case of the complainant that a post dated cheque of 25.12.2013 was issued by way of security. However this date i.e. 25.12.2013 was interpolated by the applicant and 25.12.2013 was made as 25.02.2013 and the cheque was presented. If the postdated cheque dated 25.12.2013 was issued then even in the light of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act at the best it can be said that legal liability to pay the cheque amount was on 25.12.2013 and on 25.02.2013 no legal liability had accrued - even in the light of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act if the allegations made in the complaint are considered then it is clear that the presumption as available under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act would not come to the rescue of the applicant - contention of the applicant that the complaint filed by the respondent is bad in the light of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is misconceived and hereby rejected. Whether the complaint was filed by the way of counter blast malafide and is belated or not? - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar 2008 (3) TMI 768 - SUPREME COURT has held that if the allegations make out a cognizable offence then malafides of the complainant would become immaterial. Whether the prosecution can be quashed on the ground of delay or not? - HELD THAT - Mere delay in lodging the complaint or FIR cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings unless and until the proceedings/FIR is barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. It is not the case of the applicant that complaint is barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Thus mere delay if any in filing the complaint cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Conclusion - i) The contention of the applicant that the complaint filed by the respondent is bad in the light of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is misconceived and hereby rejected. ii) If the allegations make out a cognizable offence then malafides of the complainant would become immaterial. iii) Mere delay if any in filing the complaint cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. This Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference - Application dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offenses under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the IPC based on the complaint filed by the respondent.
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to the cheque issued as security and whether it was rebutted.
Whether the complaint was filed with malafide intent as a counterblast to the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Whether the delay in filing the complaint affects its validity and can be a ground for quashing the proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Cognizance of Offenses under IPC

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court considered the provisions of the IPC relating to fraud, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, specifically Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the manipulation of the cheque date constituted an offense as it involved tampering with a valuable security.
Key evidence and findings: The respondent alleged that the applicant altered the cheque date from 25.12.2013 to 25.02.2013.
Application of law to facts: The court found that the manipulated cheque was used to file a complaint under Section 138, justifying the Magistrate's cognizance of IPC offenses.
Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant's argument that the complaint was misconceived was rejected based on the evidence of manipulation.
Conclusions: The court upheld the Magistrate's decision to take cognizance of the offenses under the IPC.

Issue 2: Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act presumes the cheque was issued for discharge of a liability.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The presumption is rebuttable, and in this case, the alleged manipulation of the cheque date rebutted the presumption.
Key evidence and findings: The court found that the cheque was issued as security and the date alteration negated the presumption of liability on 25.02.2013.
Application of law to facts: The court concluded that no legal liability existed on the altered date, thus the presumption did not aid the applicant.
Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant's reliance on Section 139 was deemed misconceived.
Conclusions: The presumption under Section 139 did not apply due to the date manipulation.

Issue 3: Malafide Intent and Counterblast Allegation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to precedents like Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar, which state that malafides do not invalidate a complaint if it discloses a cognizable offense.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that the malafide intent is immaterial if the complaint reveals a cognizable offense.
Key evidence and findings: The court noted the respondent's prior complaint to the bank about the manipulation.
Application of law to facts: The court found that the complaint's timing did not negate the validity of the allegations.
Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant's argument of malafide intent was rejected.
Conclusions: The complaint was not quashed based on alleged malafide intent.

Issue 4: Delay in Filing the Complaint

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The court cited cases like Ravinder Kumar vs. State of Punjab, emphasizing that delay alone does not invalidate a complaint.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court held that delay in lodging a complaint is not a ground for quashing unless barred by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Key evidence and findings: The court acknowledged the respondent's prior complaint to the bank.
Application of law to facts: The court found no statutory bar due to delay.
Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant's argument on delay was dismissed.
Conclusions: The delay did not justify quashing the proceedings.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Presumption under Section 139: "Therefore, there is a presumption that whenever a cheque is issued, then it must have been issued in discharge of legal liability. However, that presumption is rebuttable."
Malafide Intent: "The Supreme Court in the case of Renu Kumari vs. Sanjay Kumar...has held that if the allegations make out a cognizable offence, then malafides of the complainant would become immaterial."
Delay in Filing: "The Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab...has held that attack on prosecution cases on the ground of delay in lodging FIR has almost bogged down as a stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases."
Final Determination: The application was dismissed, upholding the Magistrate's cognizance of the offenses and rejecting the applicant's arguments regarding presumption, malafide intent, and delay.

← Previous