2021 (9) TMI 147 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - void contract in terms of section 56 of the Contract Act - waiver of rent due to unforeseen circumstances - adjudication of same matter of trial u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. - situation during the outbreak of the COVID-19 Pandemic - HELD THAT - A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondents reveals that the cheque in question was issued by the petitioners in discharge of their liability that accrued in terms of the licence deed placed on record by the respondents before the trial court and the learned trial court after satisfying itself that the complaint fulfills the requirements of sections 138 and 142 of the Act, issued the process against the petitioners vide order dated 12.01.2021. A perusal of the licence deed reveals that there is no stipulation in the licence deed that provided for waiver of the rent in view of the un-foreseen event resulting into the cessation of the business. Be that as it may, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the grounds urged by the petitioners, whether they have any substance or not, can at the most amount to defense of the petitioners that the petitioners can raise before the trial court during the trial - there is no legal infirmity either in the complaints filed by the respondents or in the order by virtue of which the process has been issued by the trial Court. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and summoning order. Interpretation of lease deed terms. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on business operations and contractual obligations. Legal validity of negotiable instrument in light of failed consideration. Jurisdiction and transfer of complaints between courts.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses five petitions with a common issue raised by the petitioners regarding the quashing of a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and summoning order issued by the trial court. The petitioners argued that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the hotel business ceased operations, leading to the failure of consideration for the cheques issued, rendering the negotiable instrument void under section 56 of the Contract Act. The respondents contended that the trial court had validly taken cognizance of the matter, and any defense raised by the petitioners should be addressed during the trial rather than in a section 482 Cr.P.C. petition.

Upon examination, the court found that the complaint was based on a cheque issued by the petitioners in discharge of their liability under a license deed, with no provision for rent waiver due to unforeseen events like business cessation. The court noted that while the petitioners' grounds might constitute a defense to be raised during trial, they did not warrant quashing the complaint at the initial stage. The court emphasized that the trial court's role was to determine if there were sufficient grounds to proceed with the case, and detailed reasons were not necessary at that point.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and connected cases, stating that there was no legal infirmity in the complaints or the order issuing process. It directed the transfer of all complaints between the same parties to be tried by the learned Forest Magistrate (JMIC) Jammu, consolidating the cases under one court for efficient adjudication. The judgment underscores the distinction between pre-trial challenges and trial proceedings, emphasizing the need for thorough examination of legal grounds during the appropriate stages of litigation.