9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 1118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, JJ. Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Vijay Chopra, Advocate. (ORAL) Crl. M.A. No. 10811/2016 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 2522/2016 and Crl. M.A. No. 10810/2016 (Stay) 1. By the present petition the petitioner seeks quashing of complaint No. NI-1013/14 under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short NI Act ) titled as Smt. Renu Kapoor vs. Smt. Veena and the proceedings pursuant thereto. 2. Renu Kapoor filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act alleging that she had advanced a loan of ₹ 60,000/- to the petitioner who was her first cousin for the operation of her mother in the form of loan which the petitioner undert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the petitioner on 3rd May, 2008 under the influence and trust being brother-in-law, which he misused. The amount due to the respondent has already been paid to her husband in her presence at their residence. However, the cheque was not returned on the pretext that the same was misplaced. Thereafter the husband of the respondent in collusion with the respondent and her brother misused the cheque and filed the complaint which is an abuse of the process of law. The petitioner also filed an affidavit in defence reiterating the averments in the application for recalling of the summoning order. 4. Vide the order dated 5th April, 2006 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner challenging the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra) on which the learned counsel for the respondents has heavily relied, this Court at para 33 (c) held: In the facts of a given case, on an overall reading of the complaint, the High Court may, despite the presence of the basic averment, quash the complaint because of the absence of more particulars about the role of the Director in the complaint. It may do so having come across some unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence which is beyond suspicion or doubt or totally acceptable circumstances which may clearly indicate that the Director could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques and asking him to stand the trial would be abuse of process of court. Despite the presence of basic averment, it may come to a con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
