SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(HP) 1036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Vijay Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Rakesh Kumar - Respondent
Cr.MMO No. 177 of 2015
Decided on: 7-9-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate.
Respondent proceeded against ex-parte.

Proper constitution and maintainability of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act are essential for jurisdictional validity.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instrument - Dishonour - Negotiable Instruments Act - Section 138, Section 141

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner issued a negotiable instrument to the respondent, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner sought to quash the complaint.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complaint was not properly constituted, maintainable, and jurisdictionally open. The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and further proceedings.

Issues: Proper constitution of the complaint, maintainability, jurisdictional validity

Ratio Decidendi: The complaint must properly constitute all necessary parties, and jurisdictional requirements must be met for it to be maintainable. Failure to do so renders the complaint jurisdictionally invalid.

Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the complaint and further proceedings are quashed and set aside.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur

1. The petitioner herein in his capacity as authorized signatory of M/s Century Vision Organic Farm Pvt. Ltd., Village Tadoli, Post Office Saru, Tehsil and District Chamba, H.P., issued a negotiable instrument in the sum of Rs.78,000/- to the complainant/respondent herein. The negotiable instrument of 30.12.2012 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Chamba stands comprised in Ex.CW1/B. It was presented by the respondent herein/complainant for payment to State Bank of Patiala, Chamba on 21.03.2013 hence within six months from the date of its issuance. However, on its presentation by him to his banker aforesaid, it was returned to him with an edorsement comprised in Ex.CW1/E of there being insufficient funds in the account of M/s Century Vision Organic Farm Pvt. Ltd for purported defrayment of whose liability towards the respondent herein, the petitioner herein issued it to the respondent herein being its authorised signatory. In other words, the negotiable instrument Ex.CW1/B on its presentation before the State Bank of Patiala, Chamba, by the respondent herein stood dishonoured by the latter. The dishonour of negotiable instrument, Ex.CW1/B by the bankers of the respondent led the respondent herein to, within 30 days from the date of intimation purveyed to him by his bankers comprised in Ex.CW1/E qua for insufficient funds existing in the account of M/s Century Vision Organic Farm Pvt. Ltd., having entailed the sequel of its being dishonoured, serve upon the petitioner a notice comprised in Ex.CW1/C, as he in his capacity as an authorised signatory of M/S Century Vision Organic Farms Pvt. Ltd., had issued to him Ex.CW1/B. Since the serving of notice Ex.CW1/C upon the petitioner herein by the complainant/respondent did not within 15 days of its receipt by the former sequel the eventuality of the petitioner herein defraying to the respondent/complainant the liability constituted in Ex.CW1/B, led the complainant/respondent herein to before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba institute a complaint against the petitioner herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba receiving the complaint took cognizance thereon and issued summons upon the petitioner herein constituted in Annexure P-4 warranting his appearance before it on 15.11.2013. However, Annexure P-4 as issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba calling upon the petitioner herein to appear before it on 15.11.2013 did not come to be served upon the petitioner herein. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba issued subsequent to the issuance of Annexure P-4, fresh summons for procuring the presence before it of the petitioner herein on 28.10.2014, which too did not come to be served upon the petitioner herein. However, the summons issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba for procuring the presence before it of the petitioner herein on 18.12.2014 came to be served upon the petitioner herein. In consequence to the summons aforesaid as issued by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba having come to be served upon the petitioner, the latter put in through his counsel his appearance before the Court aforesaid on 18.12.2014. With the petitioner on 18.12.2014 appearing through his counsel before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba, the latter Court on the complaint instituted against him by the respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act commenced proceedings against the petitioner herein. With the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba having initiated proceedings against the petitioner herein upon the complaint of the respondent/complainant instituted before it under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, led the petitioner herein to institute before this Court the instant petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top