Back
RAJNISH BHATNAGAR
Dinesh Verma – Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Rajnish Bhatnagar J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A. 2918/2023 in CRL.M.C. 765/2023
CRL.M.A. 2920/2023 in CRL.M.C. 766/2023
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
CRL.M.C. 765/2023 & CRL.M.A. 2917/2023 (stay)
CRL.M.C. 766/2023 & CRL.M.A. 2919/2023 (stay)
1. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the summoning order dated 15.02.2022 passed by Ld. ACMM, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 685/2019 registered under Section 138 N.I. Act and for quashing of the summoning order dated 06.05.2019 passed by Ld. MM (N.I. ACT)-03, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 898/2019 registered under Section 138 N.I. Act and the proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. The complainant/Respondent No. 2 herein, had instituted a complaint case no. 685/2019 under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against the petitioner in respect of non-payment against three dishonored cheques for the amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000 and Rs.9,00,000/- and complaint case no. 898/2019 in respect of non-payment against three dishonored cheques for the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, Rs.4,00,000
The accused has the responsibility to present a defense before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court and follow the due procedure of law as provided under the N.I. Act and the Cr.PC.
The High Court cannot quash a Section 138 complaint based on defenses that require factual evidence; such defenses must be raised during the trial process.
The technical nature of the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. act, the inbuilt defences available to the accused, and the summary trial procedure were central legal principles established in the ....
The legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act favors the complainant, and factual disputes must be resolved at trial, not pre-trial.
The accused has the responsibility of spelling out their defense to the court and proving it.
Dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 is actionable regardless of claims of stop payment or misplaced cheque, with legal presumptions favoring existence of debt or liability.
Quashing of FIR is an exception rather than an ordinary rule, and the High Court should exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C sparingly with circumspection.
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
