2022 (9) TMI 730 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - date of issuance of statutory notice - It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that before expiry of 45 days from the date of return of cheques the complaint had been filed - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - It is found that the Petitioner herein had appeared before the trial Court and the Trial Court had proceeded till the stage of 313 Cr.P.C., and at that stage, these Petitions had been filed. When the trial had commenced, it is the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL 1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT that the High Courts shall not exercise the discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings and only it can be exercised such discretion before commencing of the trial. On perusal of the typed set furnished by the Petitioner herein/the Accused before the trial Court, it is found that he had not replied to the statutory notice issued by the Respondent. If the accounts of the Petitioner had been blocked by the Income Tax Authorities, he ought to have informed the Respondent/Complainant regarding the blocking of the account by the Income Tax Authorities. Therefore, the cheques need not be presented. In the alternative, after issuance of the cheques by the Petitioner herein when the accounts of the Petitioner were blocked by the Income Tax Authorities, the Petitioner herein as Accused before the Trial Court ought to have informed the Respondent/Complainant to return the cheques as the accounts had been blocked - the Petitioner herein/Accused before the trial Court is not liable for the dishonor of the cheques. If that warning had been given by way of reply by the Petitioner herein, the Respondent would not have filed the Criminal Complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner herein remained silent after receipt of statutory notice from the Respondent/Complainant. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking to quash proceedings in S.T.C. Nos. 416, 417, 418, and 419 of 2018 pending on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate for Land Grabbing Offences at Salem.

Analysis:
The Petitioner argued that the complaints filed by the Respondent were premature as the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sent before the stipulated time for response had elapsed. The Respondent filed complaints for dishonored cheques, claiming the Petitioner's account was blocked. The Petitioner contended that the complaints were premature and should be quashed. The Petitioner also highlighted that the Income Tax Authorities had blocked the account, leading to the cheques being returned. The Petitioner's argument was supported by legal precedents, emphasizing the need for the account holder to be able to operate the account for liability under Section 138 of the Act.

The Respondent, however, argued that the Petitioner was employing dilatory tactics during the trial and had only provided fake denials under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Respondent cited rulings emphasizing that the legal presumption of issuing a cheque in discharge of liability could only be rebutted during the trial. The Respondent provided examples of cases where similar complaints were dismissed, indicating that the trial should proceed without interference.

The Court noted that the Petitioner had not replied to the statutory notice from the Respondent regarding the blocked account. It was emphasized that the Petitioner should have informed the Respondent about the account blockage to avoid presenting the cheques. The Court found that the Petitioner's silence after receiving the notice led to the complaints under Section 138 of the Act. The Court concluded that the Petitioner's actions, including approaching the Court after the trial had commenced, went against established guidelines. Therefore, the Court dismissed all Criminal Original Petitions and directed the trial to proceed, emphasizing the need for timely responses and adherence to legal procedures.

In summary, the judgment addressed the premature complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conduct of the parties during the trial, and the importance of timely communication and compliance with legal requirements. The ruling underscored the significance of following due process and guidelines set by legal precedents to ensure fair and just proceedings in matters involving dishonored cheques.