2021 (11) TMI 452 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - contention has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that the summoning order was passed without due application of mind - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Considering that the law is settled to the effect that a summoning order need not be a detailed order, the contention raised does not incline this Court to take a view in favor of the petitioner and the same is rejected. Even in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act, the respondent has reiterated that it had fulfilled the service tax obligation in terms of the agreement and the service tax deposit challans were also stated to have been supplied to the petitioner on more than one occasion - it is apparent that the parties have taken conflicting stands on the issue of payment of service tax/statutory dues. The complainant has averred that the dues stand paid, whereas the petitioner has denied the payment of entire dues, despite admitting that certain dues were paid. There are no ground to entertain the present petition - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Petition seeking quashing of a complaint under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 due to non-payment of statutory dues and stoppage of a post-dated cheque.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a private limited company and its directors, sought to quash a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding outstanding payments. An agreement was made for settling the dues, and post-dated cheques were issued. While two cheques were honored, the third was stopped due to non-payment of statutory charges as per the agreement. The petitioner contended that the summoning order lacked proper consideration, but the court rejected this argument citing established law that summoning orders need not be detailed.

The respondent claimed to have fulfilled the service tax obligations, providing evidence of payment, while the petitioner disputed the full payment. Conflicting claims led to a legal notice and subsequent complaint under Section 138 of the Act. The court noted the differing positions on the payment of statutory dues, emphasizing the factual dispute between the parties.

Citing legal precedents, the court highlighted that disputed factual issues should be resolved through evidence in trial courts and not in quashing proceedings. Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments, it was established that the High Court should not interfere under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when disputed questions of fact requiring evidence are involved. Consequently, considering the conflicting factual positions and legal principles, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that evidence appreciation is not permissible at the quashing stage.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need for evidence to resolve disputed factual issues and reiterating the limitations of the court's powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in cases involving conflicting claims and factual disputes.