IMPORTANT POINT
Dishonour of cheque – In exceptional circumstances, Court may take notice of attending circumstances to conclude that continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court, or where quashing of proceedings is necessary to secure ends of justice.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ MISRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal impugns judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Patna¹ [The High Court] dated 20.06.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3744 of 2015 whereby, while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973² [The Code] High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 1563(C) of 2013.

3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881³ [N.I. Act] against the first respondent by alleging, inter alia, that the first respondent took delivery of goods from the complainant and in lieu thereof issued cheque, dated 04.03.2013, of Rs. 20,00,000. On 04.03.2013 itself, the complainant presented the said cheque with its banker for collection. However, the same was returned unpaid on 11.03.2013 with a remark of insufficient funds in the drawer’s account. The complainant thereafter met the first respondent on 12.03.2013 who assured that if the cheque is presented after a week, it will be honored. In consequence, cheque was re-presented on 17.03.2013 but it was again returned unpaid on 18.03.2013, with same remark. As a result, on 02.04.2013 a legal notice of demand was sent to the first respondent. In its reply dated 08.04.2013, the first respondent denied having issued the cheque and refused to make payment. Since payment was not made within the stipulated period, the complaint was filed.

4. The learned Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint and vide order dated 27.09.2013 summoned the first respondent under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Aggrieved by the summoning order dated 27.09.2013, the first respondent filed an application (i.e. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3744 of 2015), under Section 482 of the Code, before the High Court.

5. By the impugned order dated 20.06.2019, the High Court quashed the complaint proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that the cheque was not issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

6. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has filed this appeal.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record.

8. In short, the submission on behalf of the appellant is that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by holding an enquiry as to whether the cheque in question was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability inasmuch as under Section 139 of the N.I. Act a presumption is raised, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Though this presumption is rebuttable, such presumption can only be rebutted in trial and therefore, the complaint which encapsulates all the essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act could not have been quashed at the threshold by examining whether the cheque concerned was received by the holder of the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the complaint was mala fide and therefore, the High Court was well within its jurisdiction to consider whether the cheque had been issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. It was argued that once the High Court has recorded a finding that the cheque was not issued for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, no interference with the order of the High Court is called for.

10. We have considered the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record.

11. The law is well settled that while considering a prayer to quash the criminal complaint and the consequential proceedings at the threshold, the Court is required to examine whether the