9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 737 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - Framing of charges - legally recoverable debt or liability was in existence for issuance of the cheques, or not - invocation of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC - HELD THAT - It is mentioned that in furtherance of business and for business need of the accused, complainant had advanced him money from time to time. When complainant demanded settlement of account, the accused has issued the cheuqes in question. Therefore, the complaint prima facie reflects allegations with regard to existence of legally recoverable debt or liability. The averment in the complaint would be supported by legal presumption under Section 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act at trial. The documents with regard to dissolution of partnership and the statement contained therein, may be probable defence of the accused which cannot be gone into at the preliminary stage of proceeding i.e., cognizance and framing of charge. From the complaint and the statement of complainant, no inference of absolute lack of legally recoverable debt or liability can be drawn. It cannot be said that the allegations as reflected in the complaint, if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, would not be sufficient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Also, the case under consideration does not fall within the ambit of principles laid down in case of Amit Kapoor 2014 (1) TMI 1042 - SUPREME COURT for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. This Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for quashment of proceedings. Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
Challenge to validity of proceedings pending at RCT No.09/2018 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.). Legality of order taking cognizance dated 02/04/2018 and the order framing charge dated 06/09/2019 is assailed. Summary of Judgment: The petitioner challenged the legality of the proceedings pending at RCT No.09/2018 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.), specifically questioning the order taking cognizance dated 02/04/2018 and the order framing charge dated 06/09/2019. The petitioner argued that no legally recoverable debt or liability existed for the issuance of the cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner and the respondent were business partners in a firm, which was dissolved later, and the petitioner claimed that no transactions occurred post-dissolution, hence no dues were pending. The partnership dissolution deed also confirmed the absence of dues. The petitioner contended that the cheques were not issued for partnership dissolution settlement, as claimed by the complainant. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the cheques were issued towards a loan advanced for business needs and financial transactions, specifically on the date of partnership dissolution. The respondent emphasized the probative value of the documents on record, which would be considered during the trial. After considering the arguments from both parties and the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the quashing of proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court found that the complaint prima facie reflected allegations of a legally recoverable debt or liability. The Court noted that the documents related to the partnership dissolution could be a probable defense for the accused but should be addressed during the trial, not at the preliminary stage. Therefore, the Court concluded that the case did not meet the criteria for invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC, and thus dismissed the petition. In conclusion, the petition challenging the validity of the proceedings was dismissed by the Court, as it did not meet the requirements for quashing the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
|
