9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch proceedings against the issuer of a cheque - This Court is of the view that summons issued in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act may be quashed if it is prima facie apparent from the complaint that the complainant has not presented even an iota of evidence for filing the said complaint which shows occurrence of an offence. In the case of HMT Watches Limited v. M.A. Abida, [ 2015 (5) TMI 280 - SUPREME COURT] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held ' The High Court has erred in law in going into the factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted between the parties. The High Court further erred in observing that Section 138(b) of the NI Act stood uncompiled with, even though Respondent 1 (accused) had admitted that he replied to the notice issued by the complainant. Also, the fact, as to whether the signatory of demand notice was authorised by the complainant company or not, could not have been examined by the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when such plea was controverted by the complainant before it.' Upon perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is made out that it has been emphasized time and again by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SJ, Dwarka Court, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition no. 627 /2022 titled as Tarun Mathur Vs. Anil Jain thereby the summoning order dated 08.04.2021 and framing of notice dated 18.04.2022 against petitioner no. 1 and 09.06.2022 against the petitioner no. 2 passed by the court of, Ld. MM(NI Act-04), Dwarka Court, New Delhi in the case titled Anil Jain Vs. Tarun Mathur Anr. in CC Case No. 44492/2019 be quashed B) Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the instant petition are that the respondent herein had filed a complaint bearing CC No. 44492/2019 against the petitioners before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (hereinafter MM ) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter NI Act ). In the said complaint case, the learned MM issued summons against all the petitioners vide order date 8th April, 2021 and framed notice against the petitioner no. 1 vide order dated 18th April, 2022 and against the petitioner no. 2 vide order dated 9th June, 2022. 3. The pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at it does not interfere unnecessarily, unless there is some material irregularity or illegality. 13. Before adverting to the merits of the matter in hand, this Court finds it appropriate to shed some light on the issue of law involved where the petitioners have challenged the impugned order and contended that the learned ASJ failed to appreciate that the summons were issued against them erroneously. 14. Section 138 of the NI Act is a quasi criminal remedy available to a party aggrieved by the dishonor of a cheque, who may initiate such proceedings against the issuer of a cheque. 15. This Court is of the view that summons issued in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act may be quashed if it is prima facie apparent from the complaint that the complainant has not presented even an iota of evidence for filing the said complaint which shows occurrence of an offence. 16. In the case of HMT Watches Limited v. M.A. Abida, (2015) 11 SCC 776 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the accused (Respondent 1) challenged the proceedings of criminal complaint cases before the High Court, taking factua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be Supreme Court that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 CrPC must bear in mind that whenever a proceeding under the NI Act has been challenged under the said provision, it should not express its view on the disputed question of facts to arrive at a conclusion that the offence is not made out as the same would amount to error of law. 19. Inherent powers of High Court cannot be taken for granted by the party against whom summons under Section 138 of the NI Act have been issued and the litigants must abhor filing of petitions in a routine manner. 20. The petitioner in the instant case has asserted that the learned ASJ failed to appreciate that the learned Trial Court issued summons without going through the records of the case as per which the cheques in question were of different banks and issued by different persons/signatories as well as the same pertain to different transactions. 21. Upon perusal of the records of the present case, it is made out that after considering the contents made in the petition as well as the documents alongwith the complaint, and the evidences which have been filed alongwith the affidavit, the learned Magistrate has passed a detail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e submissions made as well as the contents of the petition, and thereafter, rejected the revision petition by way of passing a detailed and reasoned order, by upholding the summoning order passed by the learned Trial Court. 30. The learned ASJ in this case has correctly upheld the order of the learned Trial Court to summon the petitioners under Section 138 of the NI Act, based on the settled principles of law. According to these principles, summons can be issued when, prima facie, a case is made out through the complaint, supporting documents, and evidence filed with the affidavit. Here, the learned Trial Court carefully reviewed these materials, issuing a reasoned summoning order and framed notice only after considering the details provided. This approach aligns with established legal practice, underscoring that a Court should ensure there is enough preliminary evidence to proceed without delving deeply into disputed factual questions at the summoning stage. 31. Moreover, it is well established by the Hon ble Supreme Court that the Courts should avoid expressing views on disputed factual questions to conclude whether an offence has been made out when proceedings under the NI Act a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
