Vijay Kumar Sood S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand vs Birender Chauhan S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh Chauhan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(HP) 173

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
Vijay Kumar Sood S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand – Appellant
Versus
Birender Chauhan S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh Chauhan – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR. RAJESHWAR THAKUR, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:MR. GAURAV SHARMA AND MR. ATUL SHARMA, ADVOCATES

Judgement Key Points

The instant petition under Section 482 CrPC, seeking to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Case No.11/3 of 2016 pending before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jubbal, was dismissed. (!) [18000303200007]

The court held that the complaint could not be quashed, as the High Court cannot examine disputed questions of fact (such as the reason for cheque dishonour) at this stage, especially when contradicted by evidence like the bank official's statement. [18000303200004][18000303200005][18000303200006]

Parties were directed to appear before the trial court on 2nd June, 2022, with records sent back forthwith. [18000303200007] (!)

ORDER :

The instant petition has been filed for the grant of following substantive relief :

“That the proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Case No.11/3 of 2016 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jubbal, District Shimla, may kindly be quashed and set aside.”

2. As per the petitioner, in the year 2015, he approached the complainant (respondent herein) and requested him to grant a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) to purchase the goods for his shop and assured that the amount will be returned to him as early as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a post dated cheque bearing No.580690, dated 25.1.2016 amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lac and fifty thousand only) of State Bank of India, Branch Jubbal, District Shimla, when the said cheque was presented in the Bank, the same was returned back with the remarks ‘Insufficient funds’. The complainant issued a legal notice to the petitioner-accused, which was duly received by him, vide acknowledgement dated 5.2.2016. Hence, the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously ar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(HP) 173

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIAVijay Kumar Sood S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand – AppellantVersusBirender Chauhan S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh Chauhan – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA
Vijay Kumar Sood S/o Late Sh. Jagdish Chand – Appellant
Versus
Birender Chauhan S/o Late Sh. Hari Singh Chauhan – Respondent