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

2022 Supreme(HP) 611

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Bed Ram, S/o Sh. Murlu Ram - Appellant
Vs.
Sh. Shyam Lal, S/o Sh. Jagdish Ram - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Petition (Main) U/S 482 Cr.P.C No. 231 of 2022
Decided On : 21-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. H.S. Rangra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate

Point of Law: Section 482 of Cr.P.C; can be exercised only for the purpose either to protect the interest of justice or to save the abuse of process of law.

Headnote:

Negotiable Instruments Act - Section138 and 139 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 – Quash of Criminal proceedings - Dishonour of Cheque - Misused of Signed Cheque - Court exercises restrictive jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C; which can be exercised only for the purpose either to protect the interest of justice or to save the abuse of process of law. [Para 11]

Finding of the Court: Petitioner and respondent were involved in some deal relating to sale and purchase of property - Consequently, there are allegations and counter allegations from both sides - Petitioner and respondent have filed their respective complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by making counter allegations - Such allegations and counter allegations are subject to proof during trial of respective complaints - It is not case of either side that cheques used against them by other side were not signed by them - It being so, initial presumption to cheques is available under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Under Section 139 (supra), holder of cheque is presumed to be holding such cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, unless contrary is proved - Court exercises restrictive jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C; which can be exercised only for purpose either to protect interest of justice or to save abuse of process of law - None of the situations are warranted in facts of instant case - Parties are to prove their respective cases in accordance with law - This court will not venture into question of facts.

Result: Petition dismissed.

ORDER :

By way of instant petition, petitioner has sought the quashing of Complaint No.29-III/2022, titled as Shyam Lal Vs. Bed Ram, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. and also order dated 21.01.2022, passed by the said Court.

2. The precise ground on which petitioner has prayed for aforesaid relief is that the complaint filed by respondent against the petitioner under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is without any cause of action. As per petitioner, he is under no legal liability to pay any amount to the respondent much less the amount as claimed in the complaint filed by him. Petitioner further submits that respondent has misused the signed cheque of petitioner, which was lost in the year 2014. The fact of the matter, according to petitioner, is that he has filed a complaint No. 186- III/17/14 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against respondent way back in 2014 as the cheques issued by respondent, in favour of petitioner, to discharge his outstanding legal liability had remained unpaid on presentation. Said complaint is still pending adjudication before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. 2, Mandi District Mandi, H.P. Respondent has been duly served. Since, petitioner already is in litigation with respondent, there is no question of any cheque being issued by him in favour of the respondent, as he was under no legal liability to do so.

3. Per-contra, the case of respondent is that the petitioner had issued the cheque favouring respondent with the undertaking that petitioner would withdraw his Complaint No. 186- III/17/14 and in case of failure to do so, respondent would be having right to present the cheque, in lieu of harassment caused to him. Thus, the cheque against which the complaint has been filed by the respondent against petitioner is stated to be for lawful consideration.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

5. The facts of the case, if seen chronologically, reveal that petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, against respondent in December, 2014 with the allegation that respondent was a property dealer and had undertaken a deal of sale of property at Village Katrain, District Kullu, H.P. from a willing seller in favour of the petitioner. A sum of Rs.17,00,000/-had been paid by petitioner to respondent for said purpose. Respondent failed to finalise the deal and issued cheque No. 922422, dated 22.08.2014 for a sum of Rs. 17,00,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank, Branch Aut, District Mandi, HP in favour of the petitioner in order to repay the amount. Before the cheque could be encashed, respondent represented that in case petitioner paid him additional sum of Rs. 7,00,000/-, the deal would be through. Accordingly, petitioner paid additional sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- to respondent. Again, the deal failed and respondent issued another cheque dated 15.10.2014 bearing No. 922423 in the sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- favoring petitioner. Both the above noted cheques were dishonoured on presentation. Petitioner issued notice to respondent demanding the cheque amounts to be paid to him within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice. Despite receipt of notice, respondent did not make the payment. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the complaint.

6. Petitioner, on 24.11.2014, reported to the police, vide D.D.R No. 23, recorded at Police Station Bhuntar, District Kullu, H.P. that his documents including a cheque book issued by H.D.F.C. Bank, had been stolen from his parked vehicle.

7. During the pendency of the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent, a notice dated 16.12.2021 was received by the petitioner issued on behalf of the respondent alleging therein that the petitioner had issued cheque No. 000069, dated 25.10.2021 in favour of the respondent, amounting to Rs. 30,00,000/- drawn on H.D.F.C. Bank, Kullu, H.P., for discharge of legal

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