A cheque exceeding the specified amount on the instrument is invalid under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

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 of cognizance order dated 27.02.2017 but the revision petition was also dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 25.07.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that dishonored cheque bearing No.128509 dated 30.05.2016 was valid for Rs.10,00,000/ & under but respondent No.1 had filled the amount of Rs.12,25,000/-. So, the said cheque was dishonored on account of ’Exeeds Arrangement’. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that at the time of the presentation of cheque, petitioner had more than Rs.13,00,000/-. So, the present cheque was not dishonored on account of ’Insufficient Fund’. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the disputed cheque bears a specific printed instruction that it would be treated valid only if issued for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- and under. Therefore, cheque-in-question which was filled in and presented for a sum of Rs.12,25,000/-cannot be treated to be a valid negotiable instrument. So, order passed by the learned trial Court against the petitioner and confirmed by the learned Revisional Court be set-aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgment passed in S. B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.3514/2016 titled as Prem Mohan Govila Vs. The State Of Rajasthan decided on 25.05.2018.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the cheque given by the petitioner was dishonored on account of ’Exeeds Arrangement’. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the exeeds arrangement is also an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that the petitioner can raise all the objections in cross-examination as well as at the time of final arguments. It is an admitted position that disputed cheque bears signature of the petitioner. So, it is irrelevant that disputed cheque filled by the petitioner or other persons. So, order of the learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court do not suffer from illegality or infirmity. So, the present petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (1) P Mohanan Pillai Vs. State Of Kerala & Ors. in Appeal(Civil) No.927/2007 decided on 23.02.2007;(2) Thomas Varghese Vs. P. Jerome in Crl. M. C. No.1371/1991 decided on 05.06.1992;(3) Kunjan Panicker Gangadhara Panicker Vs. Christudas Alias A. J. Alex & Anr. in C. R. A. No.991/1998 decided on 14.02.2003; (4) Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Prabodh Kumar Tewari in Criminal Appeal No.1260/2022 decided on 16.08.2022; (5) M/s. Credential Finance Ltd. Vs. State Of Maharashtra in Criminal Writ Petition No.154