Back
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Gauri Shankar Paladiya – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Kumar Saini – Respondent
ORDER
1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P. c. for quashing the criminal proceedings against him as well as the impugned order dated 25.07.2018 passed by learned Special Judge & learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan (For Short ’learned Revisional Court’) in Criminal Revision Petition No.43/2017[1062/2017] ’Gauri Shanker Paladiya Vs. Mukesh Kumar Saini & Anr.’ whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and affirmed the order dated 27.02.2017 passed by learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (N. I. Act Cases) No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan whereby charge for offence under Section 138 N. I. Act has been framed against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court vide order dated 27.02.2017 wrongly took the cognizance against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.1 had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner had filed a revision petition
A cheque exceeding the specified amount on the instrument is invalid under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issuing cheques in discharge of an existing liability, which are subsequently dishonoured, constitutes an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The jurisdiction of the court in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque for the discharge of debt or liability under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable, and....
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act favors the payee in case of dishonour of a cheque, and the burden of proof lies on the drawer to rebut the presumption.
Conditional acquittal in cheque bounce case upon settling remaining amount after partial payment.
The presumption of issuance of a cheque for consideration under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rebutted by mere denial of the transaction without evidence.
The accused cannot be tried for contradictory offences in the given factual scenario.
Presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
