IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is that the issuance of blank cheques as security for a loan attracts penal provisions of Section 138 NI Act, and the burden of proving the absence of a legally enforceable debt or liability lies with the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) inter alia, praying for quashing of the Criminal Complaint bearing number 1169/2018, under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (`NI Act'), titled `Corporation Bank vs Mrs. Versha Negi' and for quashing of proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition are as follows:

2.1. Complainant/Respondent No.2 herein, Corporation Bank is a bank as defined under the Banking Regulation Act 1949, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970, engaged in the business of finance among other portfolios subject to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.

2.2. It is alleged that following the representation made by the accused/petitioner herein for availing home loan facility, the complainant/Respondent No.2, believing the same to be true, sanctioned and disbursed an amount of Rs.25,63,825/- on 08.12.2015, through the home loan account no.150140. The petitioner thereafter issued some undated blank cheques duly signed in favour of Respondent No.2 authorizing it to deposit the same when the necessity arises in lieu of the liability to repay the home loan.

2.3. It is further alleged that when the petitioner defaulted in making regular monthly installments/EMIs in terms of the subject agreement, Respondent No.2 presented the cheque bearing No.000025, dated 18.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.2,57,966/-, drawn on HDFC Bank to recover the outstanding dues but the same was returned unpaid for the reason "Funds Insufficient" vide a return memo dated 19.01.2018.

2.4. Thereafter, the complainant issued a statutory demand notice dated 03.02.2018, calling upon the petitioner to pay the legally enforceable debt. Despite receiving the said notice, the petitioner did not make the requisite payment within the stipulated period of 15 days. Consequently, Respondent No.2, instituted a complaint under Section 138, read with Section 142 of the NI Act being C.C. No. 11169/2018. After considering the material on record and pre-summoning evidence, the learned Trial Court thought it fit to summon the petitioner by order dated 16.03.2018 for the offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.

2.5 Aggrieved with the abovementioned order dated 16.03.2018, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (`hereafter MM'), the petitioner preferred the present petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the Petitioner came to know about the construction of a building with a vacant flat for sale in Gurgaon, she contacted Maltha Realtors. However, she could not buy the said apartment because she lacked the necessary funds to which the director of Maltha Realtors responded that he has personal contact with the corporation bank, and the home loan would likely be approved shortly after the bank received supporting documentation from the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had regularly paid the bank installments and since Maltha Realtors did not deliver the physical possession of the apartment to the petitioner, her legal liability for the repayment of the loan towards the bank did not become effective.

5. It is further submitted on behalf of the learned counsel that the blank cheques were given for the repayment of the home loan in EMI/installments and not for the total outstanding amount. Therefore, Respondent No.2 misused the cheque by filling in the particulars on its own accord and without prior intimation. It is further submitted that the cheque amount presented by Respondent No.2 did not exclude the EMIs already paid by the petitioner. In support of the submission, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: Indus Airways Private Limited and O