Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, R. Banumathi, JJ.
Arun Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Ravindra Singh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 752 of 2018 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 6023 of 2017)
Decided On : 16-05-2018
Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashing of Proceedings - The court found that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the apparent falsity of the accused's claim regarding the theft of cheques. The proceedings against the accused were directed to recommence from the stage where it was interdicted by the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant appealed against the High Court's order quashing the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused. The accused had claimed that the cheques in question had been stolen, but the court found apparent falsity in this claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings and directed that the proceedings against the accused should recommence from the stage where it was interdicted by the High Court.
Issues: Quashing of proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, apparent falsity of the accused's claim regarding the theft of cheques.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the apparent falsity of the accused's claim regarding the theft of cheques and the mismatch between the account numbers mentioned in the complaint of theft and the account numbers mentioned in the dishonoured cheques.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the proceedings against the accused were directed to recommence from the stage where it was interdicted by the High Court.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The complainant is in appeal before this Court against an order of the High Court of Allahabad dated 15th May, 2017 by which the proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("N.I. Act" for short) has been quashed by the High Court against the respondent No. 1 - accused.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and we have considered the matter. In the reply to the notice issued under sections 138 and 142 of the N.I. Act the respondent No. 1 - accused had taken the stand that the cheque(s) in respect of which the offences were alleged had been stolen. To demonstrate the apparent falsity of the claim made by the accused in the reply we have been taken through the statement of the accused made in Case Crime No. 98/2013 which goes to show that though there is an allegation of theft of cheque(s)/cheque book(s) the same pertains to the Allahabad Bank and not the ICICI Bank on which Bank the cheques in question were issued.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 - accused has tried to convince the Court that reference to the second Cheque Book No. 1396 to 1400 of Account Nos. 50138487029 and 50131709786 in the aforesaid statement of the accused pertains to the ICICI Bank. Comparing the aforesaid Account numbers to the Account numbers mentioned in the cheques which have been dishonoured we find that the said Account number(s) referred to in the complaint of the accused with regard to the theft of cheque(s) is different from the Account number(s) mentioned in the cheque(s) dishonoured.
5. On the above basis, we take the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the impugned proceedings. We, therefore, allow this appeal; set aside the order of the High Court and direct that the proceedings against the respondent No. 1 - accused will now recommence from the stage where it was interdicted by the High Court.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
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
