9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material alteration was done in the cheque by the complainant without the consent of the petitioners. On the other hand, in the complaint, it has been alleged that it was petitioner No. 1 who re-handed over the cheque containing the material alteration. It is apparent that the factum of who carried out the material alteration is disputed and a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners would need to adduce evidence in trial in support of their assertion and to rebut the presumption. The contention of petitioners that initially on presentation, the cheque in question was encashed and the amount was credited and as such no offence under Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Panna Lal Sharma, APP for State. (VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING) MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J. (ORAL) 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 4322/2020 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act ) as well as the summoning order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the learned MM-05 (NI Act), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned summoning order was passed without application of mind. He has primarily contended that the cheque in question was materially altered by the complainant by changing the date for revalidation witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Petitioner No. 1 sent a reply dated 23.01.2020 to the complainant s notice denying his liability, due to which the complainant filed a suit for recovery of a sum of ₹ 2,93,555/- against petitioner No. 1, which is stated to be pending before the concerned Court. Although petitioner No. 1 initially denied his liability, he later on contacted the complainant and re-handed over a cheque for ₹ 55,000/- dated 22.12.2019 drawn on State Bank of India, East Park Road, New Delhi signed by petitioner No. 2 who is the mother/authorized signatory of petitioner No. 1 by changing the date on the said cheque. On presentation, the cheque amount was initially credited but, later on, because of protest made by petitioner No. 1, the said credit e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one in the cheque by the complainant without the consent of the petitioners. On the other hand, in the complaint, it has been alleged that it was petitioner No. 1 who re-handed over the cheque containing the material alteration. From above, it is apparent that the factum of who carried out the material alteration is disputed and a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners would need to adduce evidence in trial in support of their assertion and to rebut the presumption. This Court deems it profitable to allude to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported as (2019) 4 SCC 197. 33. A meaningful reading o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s has placed reliance on the decision in Veera Exports (Supra) but the same is entirely misplaced. In the captioned case also, while considering the scope of Section 87 NI Act, the Supreme Court observed that the party who consents to the alterations as well as the party who has made the alterations are disentitled to complain against such alteration. It was further observed that even if the payee or holder of the cheque made the alteration with the consent of the drawer thereof, such alteration also cannot be used as a ground to resist the right of the payee or the holder thereof. The Supreme Court went on to observe that whether the alteration was made by the drawer himself or with his consent is a disputed question of fact, which needs t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from an account that was jointly held by both the petitioners. As per the complainant s stance, it was petitioner No. 1 who had re-handed over the altered cheque signed by petitioner No. 2. In the complaint, it has been stated that all the dealings had taken place with petitioner No. 1. In view of the above, I find no merit in the contention and the same is rejected. 12. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the petition is dismissed. 13. A copy of this order be communicated electronically to the concerned Trial Court. 14. Needless to state that the observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not affect the merits of the case in the trial. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
