The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputed questions of facts and alleged financial fraud require a full-fledged trial and cannot be decided at the stage of quashing the complaints. Quashing of complaints should be based on unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. All these applications are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the Code’ for short) for quashing and setting aside the complaints being Criminal Case Nos.33342 of 2013, 33344 of 2013 and 33345 of 2013 respectively, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘NI Act’ for short).

2. As the common question of facts and law are involved in these applications, at the request of learned advocates for the parties, they are heard together and disposed of by this common oral order.

3. It is stated in the applications that the complaints came to be filed by the complainant in the capacity of power of attorney holder of Geetaben Vijaybhai Patel; that as the accused was in need of money for business purpose and demanded the same from the complainant, the complainant, in the capacity of a fried, lent the amounts for which cheques were issued by the accused; the complainant deposited the said cheques in the bank which were dishonoured on the ground of ‘funds insufficient’. The complainant issued legal notice which was served and reply was given, thereafter the complaints are filed, which are prayed to be quashed by way of these applications.

4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.

4.1 Learned advocate for the applicant Ms.Shah for the applicant submitted that the cheques are not signed by the applicant and it is not her signature; the said signature does not match with the signature of the applicant which is with the records of the bank and therefore the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable; that it is specifically replied in the reply to notice that it is not her signature; that the applicant does not know the complainant personally and she did not have any financial transactions with the complainant; that the complainant had financial transactions with the cousin brother of the husband of the applicant; that the cheques are misused and they are not given towards discharge of any legal debt or liability. She, therefore, submitted the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are not made out and, therefore, these applications be allowed and the impugned complaints be quashed and set aside qua the applicant.

5. Per contra, learned APP for respondent no.1-state has objected these applications and submitted that this Court should not exercise its powers by interfering with the proceedings of recovery of amount and the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Act are perfectly justified.

6. Learned advocate Mr.Jain for respondent no.2- complainant has submitted that the cheques are issued by the applicant and they bear her signature. That the accounts were in her name and later on, the name of her husband was added. Learned advocate Mr.Jain, therefore, submitted that since the matter does not only involve issues of Section 138 of the NI Act but involves an outright financial fraud committed by the applicant, the facts of which are subject matter of trial and this Court should not exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code, which otherwise, should be exercised sparingly. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss these applications.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

8. At the outset, the provisions of Sections 138 of the NI Act are required to be seen, which read as under:

“138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.

Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have co