Back
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN
Arfa Khan – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge herein is to an order dated 17.09.2021, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.2549/2017, whereby the High Court declined to discharge the appellants in Complaint No.451/2017, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and, thus, has upheld the order dated 12.07.2017 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur. It was that order which the appellants challenged before the High Court in the above-mentioned Criminal Revision Petition.
3. The appellants are doctors by profession. They are practicing in London (U.K.). They are persons of Indian origin though British citizens. Respondent No.2 is the complainant, who is a close relative of the appellants. Two cheques were statedly given by the appellants to respondent No.2 on 11.01.2016 and 16.01.2016, which were presented allegedly after interpolating the dates and changing the month from January to September. The cheques were dishonoured and consequently, respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellants, as noticed earlier, moved an application for their discharge but the
Dishonour of cheques – Supreme Court is not the appropriate forum to resolve factual disputes – Parties may pursue their remedy before Civil Court.
The High Court erred in examining the merits of a case under S.138 prematurely instead of allowing trial for evidence.
Dishonour of cheque – Complaint cannot be quashed by High Court on mere presumptions.
Liability for cheque issuance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be determined at the quashing stage and requires evidentiary support.
Independent causes of action for dishonoured cheques can lead to multiple complaints under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the necessity of an inquiry under Sec. 202 is contingent upo....
A cheque exceeding the specified amount on the instrument is invalid under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act mandates that issued cheques are presumed to be for legally enforceable debts, which the accused must rebut with evidence.
The acquittal order must be complied with unless an interim stay is issued; trial Court's refusal to release funds was improper.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains until disproven, and the determination of such issues is a matter for the trial court.
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
