2016 (7) TMI 1118 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of cheque - Complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Held that - In the present case, the petitioner seeks appreciation of defence evidence by this Court by pointing out the change in the ink, that the cheque book was issued in the year 2008 and it was an old cheque. I am afraid that this piecemeal appreciation of evidence cannot be done by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The arguments raised by the petitioner will have to be considered by the learned Trial Court after he has cross-examined the complainant/witnesses and/or led defence evidence.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Validity of statutory notice served for dishonored cheque.
3. Allegations of misuse of blank cheque and collusion in filing the complaint.
4. Review of summoning order by the Metropolitan Magistrate.
5. Defense argument regarding false and mala fide complaint.
6. Application of legal precedents in quashing complaints.
7. Jurisdiction of the Court to drop proceedings if no offense is disclosed.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought quashing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act, alleging repayment of a loan with a dishonored cheque. The respondent/complainant provided evidence of service of statutory notice and dishonor of the cheque, leading to the summoning order by the Magistrate.

2. The petitioner contended that no statutory notice was served, and the debt had been repaid to the complainant's husband. The Magistrate dismissed the challenge, noting evidence of service and dishonor, establishing a presumption of liability against the petitioner.

3. The petitioner raised allegations of collusion and misuse of a blank cheque by the complainant's husband, leading to the false complaint. However, the Court found these arguments to be a matter for trial court consideration after proper examination and cross-examination.

4. The defense highlighted discrepancies in the cheque's date filling, alleging a false complaint. Citing legal precedents, the defense argued for quashing the complaint based on unimpeachable evidence, but the Court emphasized that detailed evidence assessment falls under the trial court's purview.

5. The Court reiterated that piecemeal evidence assessment is not within its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for thorough examination during trial proceedings. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it along with the related applications.

6. The judgment underscores the Court's authority to drop proceedings if no offense is disclosed against the accused, emphasizing the importance of detailed evidence examination during trial for a fair adjudication of the matter.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved and the Court's reasoning in addressing each aspect of the case.