9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 984X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ELD THAT:- There is a presumption that whenever a cheque is issued, then it must have been issued in discharge of legal liability. However, that presumption is rebuttable. It is the case of the complainant that a post dated cheque of 25.12.2013 was issued by way of security. However, this date i.e., 25.12.2013 was interpolated by the applicant and 25.12.2013 was made as 25.02.2013 and the cheque was presented. If the postdated cheque dated 25.12.2013 was issued, then even in the light of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, at the best, it can be said that legal liability to pay the cheque amount was on 25.12.2013 and on 25.02.2013, no legal liability had accrued - even in the light of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be a ground to quash the proceedings.
>This Court is of considered opinion that no case is made out warranting interference - Application dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Limited and another vs. Rajiv Dubey reported in 2009 (1) SCC 706, and judgment passed by Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of G.D. Choudhary vs. Vishnukumar and another reported in 2009 SCC (Online) 763 and Adarsh Singh Kushwaha vs. State of M.P. reported in 2016 (3) MPLJ 176. >4. Per contra, the application is vehemently opposed by counsel for the respondent. It is submitted that issuance of cheque is not in dispute but the only question for consideration is that the date was manipulated by the applicant. A post dated cheque of 25.12.2013 was issued but by interpolating the cheque the date 25.12.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by applicant on 18.05.2013, whereas if the post dated cheque of 25.12.2013 was issued, then it is clear that by the time when the complaint was filed, no legal liability had accrued against the respondent. Therefore, even in the light of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, if the allegations made in the complaint are considered, then it is clear that the presumption as available under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act would not come to the rescue of the applicant. >8. Thus, the contention of counsel for applicant that the complaint filed by the respondent is bad in the light of Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is misconceived and hereby rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 15.05.2013 but no action was taken by the Bank. >14. Be that whatever it may be. >15. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether the prosecution can be quashed on the ground of delay or not? >16. The Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Kumar and another Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 690 has held that attack on prosecution cases on the ground of delay in lodging FIR has almost bogged down as a stereotyped redundancy in criminal cases. It is a recurring feature in most of the criminal cases that there would be some delay in furnishing the first information to the police. It has to be remembered that law has not fixed any time for lodging the FIR. Hence a delayed FIR is not illegal. Of course, a prom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
