Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
Arun Kumar Choudhary @ Arun Choudhary, Son of Khokhay Choudhary – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 1030 of 2024, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saharsa, whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner.
3. Notice was issued to Opposite Party No. 2/complainant, which was duly served and he has entered appearance.
4. The prosecution case is based upon the complaint petition as contained in Annexure-P/1. From a perusal of the complaint petition, particularly paragraph-4, it is alleged that the accused-petitioner had issued six cheques, each for a sum of ₹ 3,00,000/-, on 19.07.2023 and it is further alleged that the complainant presented the said cheques on 23.08.2024 in his bank account maintained with Bandhan Bank, which were dishonored and returned unpaid with the endorsement “Exceeds Arrangement.”
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheques were not presented within the statutory pe
The court reaffirmed that the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be established through evidence at trial, not pre-trial.
A cheque must be presented within six months for a valid complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; statutory presumption applies if no reply to the notice is given.
Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is invalid if filed before the mandatory 15-day period post-notice. The court cannot take cognizance until that period has elapsed.
The court upheld the validity of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the necessity for expeditious trial and the inappropriateness of examining factual aspect....
The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 arises after 15 days from the service of the demand notice, not from the notice itself.
The High Court cannot resolve factual disputes in a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such matters must be determined by the trial court.
Dishonour of cheque – When there are specific allegations in complaint disclosing ingredient of offence, quashing of proceeding by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by High Court is i....
The court affirmed that a complaint under Section 138 NI Act does not require exhaustive details of the debt, as the presumption of liability under Section 139 suffices for taking cognizance.
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
