2020 (9) TMI 394 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of complaints - Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - proceedings conducted by the trial court including order of cognizance and summoning passed by the trial court - HELD THAT - he complaints in question though initially have had been filed with a defect of not mentioning name of defacto complainant -the Managing Director of the Company namely Rajat Chadha yet the said defect had been allowed to be removed by the trial court vide order dated 14.08.2017 and the said order though questioned by the petitioner in earlier 561-A petitions was not set aside by this court meaning thereby that the complaints in question are very well competent. Similarly the issue raised by the petitioner about taking on record of preliminary statement original affidavit of the complainant attested by oath commissioner pursuant to the order of trial court dated 01.07.2017, which order too though challenged in the earlier 561-A petitions was not set aside by this court. The said orders thus assumed finality and in law, could not be re-agitated in the instant petitions. Although the trial court while considering the matter upon receiving record back from this Court seemingly has erred initially while summoning the petitioner/ accused pursuant to orders dated 09.06.2018, 30.06.2018 and 21.07.2018, however, subsequently corrected the conducting of proceedings upon recording preliminary statement of the respondent/ complainant and upon passing fresh cognizance and summoning order dated 17.12.2018 notwithstanding the earlier summoning of the petitioner herein. The aforesaid errors committed by the trial Court by no sense of imagination could said to be fatal to the entire proceedings, in that, even if same or treated nullity or are set aside the further proceedings subsequently conducted by the trial court would not get affected. Thus, complaining of suffering a prejudice or injustice on this account by the petitioner is insignificant and legally of no consequence. Furthermore the petitioner cannot question the order of cognizance or else proceedings conducted by the trial court after receipt of record back from this court on account of denial of hearing is also legally not sustainable, since hearing of accused at the time of recording of preliminary statement of the complainant, passing of cognizance order as also before issuance of process is not, in law, conceived of. This court is of the view that in the instant cases exercise of inherent power is not warranted - Petition dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
2. Legality of the cognizance order dated 17.12.2018.
3. Validity of the proceedings conducted by the trial court after the High Court's order dated 31.05.2018.
4. Allegations of prejudice and denial of justice to the petitioner.
5. Applicability of Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act regarding the limitation period.
6. Misuse of blank cheques and the nature of the dispute (civil vs. criminal).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of Complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act:
The petitioner challenged the maintainability of the complaints on the grounds that the original complaints were filed with defects such as unsigned affidavits and lack of proper authorization from the company. The trial court allowed rectification of these defects, which was not set aside by the High Court in earlier petitions. Therefore, the complaints were deemed competent.

2. Legality of the Cognizance Order Dated 17.12.2018:
The petitioner argued that the fresh cognizance order dated 17.12.2018 was contrary to the High Court's earlier judgment and was passed without proper application of mind. The court found that the trial court had corrected its earlier errors by recording the preliminary statement of the complainant and passing a fresh cognizance order. The trial court's actions were deemed valid and legal.

3. Validity of the Proceedings Conducted by the Trial Court After the High Court's Order Dated 31.05.2018:
The petitioner contended that the trial court's proceedings, including summoning the accused before taking cognizance, were illegal. The court acknowledged some procedural errors by the trial court but held that these errors were not fatal to the proceedings. The trial court's subsequent actions, including recording the complainant's statement and issuing a fresh cognizance order, were found to be in accordance with the law.

4. Allegations of Prejudice and Denial of Justice to the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed that the trial court's actions caused serious prejudice and denied him a fair trial. The court rejected this argument, stating that the accused is not entitled to a hearing before the issuance of process. The trial court's actions did not violate the principles of natural justice.

5. Applicability of Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act Regarding the Limitation Period:
The petitioner argued that the fresh order of cognizance was barred by the limitation period under Section 142(1)(b) of the NI Act. The court clarified that the relevant date for considering the limitation is the date of filing the complaint, not the date of taking cognizance. Since the complaints were filed within the limitation period, this ground was dismissed.

6. Misuse of Blank Cheques and the Nature of the Dispute (Civil vs. Criminal):
The petitioner alleged that the cheques were misused by the complainant and that the dispute was of a civil nature. The court noted that these issues were raised in earlier petitions and were not decided by the High Court. Therefore, they could not be re-agitated in the current proceedings. These issues could be addressed during the trial.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The trial court's actions, including the fresh cognizance order dated 17.12.2018, were upheld as valid and legal. The petitions were deemed an abuse of the process of the court, aimed at frustrating legitimate prosecution. The inherent power under Section 482 CrPC was not exercised, and the petitions were dismissed along with all connected applications.

← Previous Next →