9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 511X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t unless the impugned order under Annexure-3 is quashed, there would be miscarriage of justice and hence, inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised. The petitioner happens to be the accused in a complaint case pending before the court below for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (here-in-after referred to as 'the NI Act') which has been filed by OP No.1 alleging therein that the former had taken a hand loan of Rs. 40,000/- to meet his personal needs and when it could be paid back, on 15th May, 2010, some henchmen of OP No.1 forcibly entered inside his residence and managed to obtain a cheque for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- drawn in the UCO Bank, Khurda Branch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he offence. The question is, whether on the basis of a statutory notice issued by OP No.1 subsequent to dishonour of cheque about five months before, the learned court below could have entertained the complaint and taken cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act as against the petitioner? 6. More or less a similar question was before the Supreme Court in M/s. Sicagen India Ltd. Vrs. Mahindra Vadideni and Others (Criminal Appeal Nos.26-27 of 2019) decided on 8th January, 2019, wherein, it has been held that even a second statutory notice after re-representation of cheque is maintainable in law. In fact, the issue before the Supreme Court was, whether, a criminal complaint based on a subsequent or successive statutory notice fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect of the N.I. Act has been discussed by the Supreme Court in M/s. Sicagen India Ltd. referring to Leathers case observing that if the entire purpose underlined Section 138 of the N.I. Act is to compel the drawers to honour their commitments made in course of business or other transactions, there is no reason why a person who has issued a cheque which is dishonoured and who failed to make payment despite statutory notice served upon him should be immune to prosecution simply because the holder of the cheque had not rushed to the court with a complaint based on such default or for the reason that the drawer has made the holder defer prosecution promising to make arrangements for funds or on account of any other similar situation. The Suprem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
