MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
Arpan Jain – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
ORDER
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. (Oral). - The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of Complaint Case No. 4322/2020 filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'NI Act') as well as the summoning order dated 25.03.2021 passed by the learned MM-05 (NI Act), Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned summoning order was passed without application of mind. He has primarily contended that the cheque in question was materially altered by the complainant by changing the date for revalidation without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners. He has further submitted that in view of the mandate of Section 87 NI Act, the cheque had became void. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Veera Exports v. T. Kalavathy reported as (2002) 1 SCC 97.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in the present case, the offence under Section 138 NI Act was not made out as the cheque in question was initially honoured and the
Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another
The need for evidence to rebut the presumption under the NI Act and the inadmissibility of appreciating evidence at the stage of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders it void unless made to carry out the common intention of the original parties, and only the date on the cheque could be altered. Additionally, a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 138 and Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in determining the validity of a complaint un....
Compliance with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including Section 87, is crucial in cases involving dishonour of cheques.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the onus on the accused to raise a probable defense and the requirements for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrume....
A party who consents to alternations as well as party who made alternations are disentitled to complain against such alternations.
Dishonour of cheque – Accused has to rebut presumption available in favour of complainant.
Material alterations in a negotiable instrument void the instrument unless consented to by all parties involved.
Material alteration in cheque's payee account number without drawer's consent or authentication renders it void under Section 87 NI Act; complainant bears burden to explain; rebuts presumptions under....
The legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act favors the complainant, and factual disputes must be resolved at trial, not pre-trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.