9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reveals that the cheque in question had been issued qua a time barred debt. Therefore, the complaint in question was liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on 'Manjit Kaur v. Vanita 2010 (3) R.C.R (Criminal) 574', wherein it was held as under:- "Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the cheque was issued on 28.6.2003 On reckoning, it works out that the loan was advanced somewhere in June, 1999. A meticulous perusal of the evidence on record would reveal that the appellant has not produced any document or other evidence revealing that the accused-respondent had acknowledged the debt within three years from the date of loan. Thus, by the time, the cheque was issued, the debt became barre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gally enforceable debt." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on 'Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Vinnay Aggarwal. 2010 (5) R.C.R (Criminal) 728' wherein it was held as under:- "6. A perusal of the complaint and other documents as referred to above goes to show that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs by way of cheque to petitioner No. 1 at the asking of petitioner No. 2 somewhere in January, 2002 and the said cheque was credited in the account of petitioner No. 1 on 1.2.2002 and was payable after six months and was not paid within three years from 31.8.2002 that is the period within which it was under limitation and as such the loan became time barred as on 31.8.2002 A perusal of the complaint a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roached the complainant on the pretext that he wanted to purchase some property and required Rs. 4,00,000/-. 6. On 21.1.2011, complainant advanced loan to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 4,00,000/-. In May 2014, complainant requested the petitioner to repay the loan as he was in urgent need of money. Consequently, petitioner issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- on 4.6.2014 in favour of the complainant. When the cheque in question was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks "insufficient funds". Despite issuance of notice, petitioner had failed to pay the cheque amount in question. Hence, the complaint in question was filed. 7. Complainant in support of his case, led his preliminary evidence and the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebt or liability was barred by limitation and, therefore, there was no legally enforceable debt or liability against the accused. The case before the High Court was not of such a nature which could have persuaded the High Court to draw such a definite conclusion at this stage. Whether the debt was time barred or not can be decided only after the evidence is adduced, it being a mixed question of law and fact. x x x x x 10. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court could not have quashed the proceedings on the ground that at the time of issuance of cheque, the debt had become time barred and therefore, the complaint was not maintainable. The High Court, therefore, fell into a grave error in quashing the proceedings. 11. In the result, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
