Back
D.K.JAIN, R.M.LODHA
Jugesh Sehgal – Appellant
Versus
Shamsher Singh Gogi – Respondent
What is involved in proving an offense under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and when can a court quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in such matters? What is the proper scope and usage of the High Court’s powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in quashing complaints for offences under Section 138 NI Act, 1881? What constitutes an abuse of the process of the court in the context of a Section 138 NI Act complaint and when should proceedings be quashed in rarest of rare cases?
Key Points: - (!) (!) (!) Section 138 requires six specific ingredients to be proven for conviction; all ingredients must be satisfied cumulatively. - (!) The appellant’s cheque was drawn on an account not maintained by him, raising a challenge to the first ingredient and rendering the offence not proved. - (!) - (!) The High Court’s power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly, in rarest of rare cases, to prevent abuse of process or to serve the ends of justice, and quashing was warranted here. - (!) - (!) The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal complaint against the appellant. - (!) - (!) The complaint and sequence of notices/defences show the contested issue regarding the issuer’s account and its sufficiency to sustain Section 138 liability. - (!) - (!) The statutory text defines the offence and its operative conditions, including the timeframes for presentation, notice, and payment. - (!) - (!) Som Mittal and Bhajan Lal principles guide the interpretation of "rarest of rare cases" for exercising 482 Cr.P.C. powers. - (!) Result: appeal allowed; complaint quashed.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2005 rendered by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 47932-M of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge, while partly allowing the petition preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”) seeking quashing of a private complaint filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) has dismissed the petition qua the appellant.
3. In order to appreciate the controversy, a few material facts may be stated thus:
The complainant is engaged in the trading of petroleum products. According to him, the appellant, his father, brother and mother used to purchase mobile oil from him from time to time. According to the complainant, on 20th November, 2000, all four of them got issued a cheque bearing No. 227739 drawn on Indian Bank, Sonepat in the sum of Rs.24,92,115/- in discharge of their liability towards him. The complainant presented the cheque for payment to his b
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
