IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
B.N. KARIA, J.
Jayantibhai Ramanbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Others – Respondent
R/Criminal Misc.Application No. 31154 of 2017
Decided on : 27-07-2021
Evidence Act - Section 138 ,3 - Code of Criminal Procedure .1973 - Section 482 ,139,204 - N.I. Act - Section 118,139 - Dishonoured Of Cheques - Power of direct local investigation - Criminal Misc. Application to quash - Whether cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which could have been determined only by trial court after recording evidence of parties - Whether signatory of demand notice was authorised by complainant company or not, could not have been examined by High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure when such plea was controverted by complainant before it –
Finding of the Court:
Accordingly court did not find any merits in petition, thereafter, same is dismissed - Ad interim relief stands vacated. - Rule nisi discharged with no order as to costs - Applicant-accused has admitted issuance of cheque and his signature on cheque and that cheque in question was issued for security purpose as well as amount was paid by him. There is a presumption under Section 139 of N.I.Act that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability - Course, such presumption is rebuttable in nature - However, to rebut presumption accused was required to lead evidence that full amount due and payable to complainant has been paid - Court present case, two receipts are produced by accused-applicant which requires to be proved by him with cogent evidence in trial - Story put forward by applicant-accused that cheque was given by way of security is not believable at juncture to rebut presumption –
Result: Application dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent-State.
2. The brief facts of this case are as under:-
2.1 That the complainant and the original accused-applicant is known to each other as they are doing business of Tobacco. That, tobacco worth Rs. 5,95,000/- was sold to the accused. That, according to the complaint, Rs.1,30,000/- was paid and cheque No. 000004 of Rs.60,000/- of HDFC Bank Nadiad Branch dated 24.4.2017 was given by the accused towards remaining payment. That, as per complaint, the said cheque was deposited by the complainant in Gujarat Rural Bank, Nandisar Branch on 7.7.2017, which was returned on 10.7.2017 with the endorsement of “insufficient fund”. That, a notice dated 2.8.2017 was issued by the complainant to the accused-applicant which is served to the accused-applicant on 5.8.2017, even though accused-applicant neither replied nor complied with as claimed under the notice Hence, the complaint was filed. That, initially the complaint was registered as Criminal Inquiry No. 182 of 2017 vide order dated 8.9.2017 and it was kept for inquiry and the complainant was directed to remain present on 15.9.2017. That, the complainant has produced a list of documents along with the complaint and the examination-in- chief of the complainant on affidavit was also presented afterwards. That, by order dated 15.9.2017, below Exh. 1, complaint was ordered to be registered and process was directed to be issued u/s. 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure making returnable on 9.10.2017. That, the said complaint is being registered as Criminal Case No. 2208 of 2017.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of issuance of process in the said complaint, the applicant has preferred this Criminal Misc. Application to quash and set aside the impugned complaint along with the order of issuance of process against him and all subsequent proceedings in connection thereof.
4. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that the cheque in question was misused by the respondent No.2 to grab more money from the applicant for which the applicant was not liable to pay the same. It is further submitted that the demanded amount has already been paid prior to presentation of the cheque. Therefore, no offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruction Act can be said to have been committed by the present applicant. Hence, the issuance of process for the same deserves to be quashed and set aside Referring documentary list produced on record by the original complainant before the trial, it is submitted that reply of the notice issued by the complainant was given on 22nd August, 2017 at Sr. No.6. However, the complainant, in his chief-examination before the trial Court, has denied of the reply given by the present applicant. That, the original complainant is a lier and suppressed the correct facts before the Court below. That, he has never denied of accepting Rs.60,000/- under his signature, as per receipt issued by him produced at annexure “D”, therefore, he is silent on his part. It is further submitted that there is no legal due payable to the respondent No.2 by the applicant. It is further submitted that cheque was issued only for security purpose by the applicant. Therefore, he has requested that there is a clear misuse of process by filing the complaint u/s. 138 of N.I.Act and abuse of process of law. Hence, it was requested by the learned Advocate for the petitioner to quash and set aside the Criminal Case No. 2208 of 2017 pending before the learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Godhara.
5. From the other side, Mr.Pradip Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 has objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and submitted that paying Rs.60,000/- by the applicant to respondent No.2 or issuing any receipt under his signature can be proved or disproved at the relevant point of time while recording th
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.