9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he cheques are all the questions which can be decided only at the trial of the complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and could not have been made the basis of allowing the revision petition. Similar view has been taken in S. KRISHNAMOORTHY VERSUS CHELLAMMAL [ 2015 (3) TMI 1386 - SUPREME COURT] , where the Supreme Court held that when there are disputed questions of facts involved, the same would be a matter of trial and cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court is of the view that while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it would be expedient for the Court to not go into the disputed questions of fact, the same being a matter of trial - Petition dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 138 N.I. Act are not made out. 3. Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of the respondent on advance notice and submits that the petitioner has filed the present petition with mala fide intention. He further submits that as in 2016, the petitioner was in total debt of ₹ 10,61,952/-. He further submits that the legal notice was issued on 12.05.2017 which was received by the petitioner on 15.05.2017. He also submits that the NEFT transfer of ₹ 5,02,316/- made by the petitioner was not within 15 days period of the demand and further the same was not in any way towards the clearance of the debt in the present case. Lastly, it is submitted that bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner vide order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as beyond the period of 15 days from the date of receipt/service of notice and (ii) that even otherwise, the NEFT transfer was not towards the outstanding cheque amount but towards other liability, the total liability being more than double of the cheque amount i.e., ₹ 10,61,952/-. 8. A perusal of the documents filed along with the petition would show that in relation to the receipt of legal notice dated 12.05.2017, a 'track consignment' Report of the Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, has been placed on record. The same shows that an attempt to deliver the item (i.e., the notice) was made on 15.05.2017 but the item was 'delivered' on 20.05.2017. 9. It has been averred on behalf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 40 lakhs by six bank drafts after the issue of some of the cheques. Whether the said payment has been made or it is towards some of the amounts covered by the cheques are all the questions which can be decided only at the trial of the complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and could not have been made the basis of allowing the revision petition. The approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous. (emphasis added) 12. Similar view has been taken in S. Krishnamoorthy v. Chellammal reported as (2015) 14 SCC 559, where the Supreme Court held that when there are disputed questions of facts involved, the same would be a matter of trial and cannot be decided in the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. In view of the above position of law, we have no option but to set aside the order passed by the High Court as it has entered into highly disputed questions of fact and concluded that the material before it was sufficient to cause reasonable suspicion in the case of the complainant. That is not the ground on which powers under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised by the High Court. (emphasis added) 13. On a perusal of the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the view that while exercising its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it would be expedient for the Court to not go into the disputed questions of fact, the same being a matter of trial. 14. In consideration of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the present petition is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
