Point of Law:Dishonor of cheque – Cognizance of offence – Revision - scope of revision is very limited and the merits of the case cannot be decided in a revision petition- truth or falsity cannot be entered into by the Revisional Court, that too, in the initial stage of the case

ORDER :

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to set aside the order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Crl.R.P.No.177/2019 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru, upholding the issuance of summons issued by the II Additional Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikkamagaluru, in PCR No.252/2019 subsequently numbered as C.C.No.690/2019 vide order dated 08.05.2019.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the respondent herein had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (‘NI Act’ for short), contending that the petitioner herein had borrowed a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-from the respondent herein as a hand loan. When demanded the repayment of the said amount, the petitioner herein has issued a self cheque dated 22.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-towards part payment and assured that the same will be honoured upon presentation. But the same was returned with an endorsement as ‘account closed’ and hence, the proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act.

3. The learned Magistrate after perusing the materials on record and after recording of sworn statement of the complainant took the cognizance of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. Being aggrieved by the said order, he had preferred Crl.R.P.No.177/2019 and the Revisional Court also confirmed the order of the Magistrate in coming to the conclusion that the grounds, which have been urged, cannot be adjudicated conclusively at the stage of issuance of process and the scope of revision is also limited. The allegations made in the complaint on the face of the record have to be accepted and falsity cannot be entertained by the Revisional Court. Hence, the present petition is filed.

4. The grounds urged in this petition are that, undisputedly the alleged date of advancement of loan was barred by limitation. Without any material, a self cheque has been treated as an acknowledgement when it is not even pleaded by the complainant. Thereupon no element of violation of Section 138 of the NI Act, taking cognizance and issuing summons is per-se illegal and a manifest error is apparent on the face of the record. It is also contended that no detailed order is required to pass at the time of taking cognizance but the short cut adopted by the Magistrate is also not acceptable and he did not apply his mind on the material available on record.

5. The learned Magistrate before directing to registering the complaint and issue summons, has not addressed himself on the legal question whether there is criminal liability on the part of the petitioner to attract the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act. It is also contended that the cheque issued is a self-cheque is not in dispute and there is no endorsement and with no such endorsement, the same cannot be holder-in-due course and he was having the said self cheque written it more than two months back. There are very strong assertions about the claim of the respondent. It is contended that a cardinal rule of evidence, not one of technicality but of substance, which is dangerous to depart from that where written documents exist, they shall be produced as being the best evidence of their own contents. The Trial Court has committed a grave error by misleading the complainant. The very approach of both the Magistrate as well as the Revisional Court is an error apparent on the face of the record and failed to consider the grounds urged before the Magistrate and Revisional Court that the claim is barred by limitation. The cheque is also kept for a period of two months and there is no endorsement and in the absence of endorsement when the cheque was presented, it does not attract Section 138 of the NI Act. It is also contended that the respondent is not a holder-in-due course of the cheque. The learned counsel reiterating the grounds urged in this petition vehemently contends that for quashing of this petition he re