9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 52 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - Veracity of the said Authority Letter , the execution thereof and the phraseology used therein - HELD THAT - Records reveal that the petitioner has nowhere disputed the execution of a Promissory Note , in his handwriting, under his signatures, acknowledging his liability of the debt to the respondent no. 2 and his wife. Similarly, the petitioner has also nowhere disputed the factum of issuance of any of the aforesaid 9 cheques or his signatures thereon or his handwriting thereon. So much so, the petitioner has also nowhere denied that there is no liability/ debt against the aforesaid 9 cheques. It is also nowhere denied that all the aforesaid 9 cheques were i pertaining to the very same transaction; ii issued on the same date; and iii returned on the same date by the very same Bank - A perusal of the pleadings made by the petitioner herein also disclose that there is no such averment exhibiting any special cause and/ or reason made anywhere before this Court to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. With respect to issue(s) of the execution of the Authority Letter , the phraseology used therein as also the same being improperly executed, non-filing of the complaint under Section 138 NIA by the wife of the respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 not being either the payee or the holder in due course, and non-certification of the bank memo or the return slip by the bank, in the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid being disputed questions of facts, require trial and due adjudication by the learned Trial Court and not by this Court and that too at this stage, whence the learned MM is already seized of the complaint and has merely passed the summoning order. In the opinion of this Court, if this Court proceeds to consider the aforesaid issues, it would tantamount to holding a mini trial, which as per trite law and under the facts and circumstances involved herein, is per se not permissible under Section 482 CrPC, especially whence the trial before the learned MM is ongoing. This Court cannot substitute or carry out the functions of the learned Trial Court. In any event, considering that the proceedings before the learned MM are at a very nascent stage, it would be improper for this Court to enter the merits of the Complaint Case. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for invoking its powers under 482 of the CrPC. More so, whence the present petition has been filed on technical grounds wherein almost more than 2 years have elapsed and the issues raised therein are a matter of trail. As per this Court, the present petition seems to be motivated to somehow delay and derail the proceedings/ trial before the learned MM. Thus, the present petition is a fit one calling for not only dismissal but also for imposition of costs. The present petition along with the application is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid in favour of the Delhi State Legal Services Committee within a period of two weeks.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the maintainability of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the validity of an 'Authority Letter' issued by the wife of the complainant, the certification of bank memos, and the consolidation of multiple cheques in a single complaint. Summary: Issue 1: Maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 NIA The petitioner sought setting aside and quashing of the complaint under Section 138 NIA filed by the respondent no. 2 against the petitioner and others. The petitioner argued that the complaint is not maintainable as the respondent no. 2 is neither the payee nor the holder in due course. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to support the contention. Issue 2: Validity of the 'Authority Letter' The petitioner challenged the validity of the 'Authority Letter' issued by the wife of the complainant in favor of the respondent no. 2. The petitioner disputed the execution and phraseology of the letter, contending that it does not support the filing of the complaint by the respondent no. 2 alone. Issue 3: Certification of Bank Memos The petitioner argued that the bank memo or slip cannot be considered as evidence as it is not certified by the bank as required under Section 146 NIA. The petitioner cited a previous court order to support this argument. Issue 4: Consolidation of Multiple Cheques in a Single Complaint The petitioner contended that a single complaint under Section 138 NIA for all nine dishonored cheques is not maintainable under Section 219 CrPC. The petitioner argued that the cheques cannot be clubbed together in one complaint. Legal precedents were cited in support of this argument. The court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the execution of a Promissory Note or the issuance of the cheques. It was observed that the disputed questions of facts required trial and adjudication by the Trial Court, not the High Court at that stage. The court emphasized that it cannot conduct a mini trial and should not interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings at a nascent stage. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated reasonable grounds to invoke its powers under Section 482 CrPC. The court dismissed the petition, imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 to be paid to the Delhi State Legal Services Committee, and directed proof of payment to be submitted to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate within two weeks.
|
