Point of Law: It is well settled that Section 482 Cr.PC endows restrictive jurisdiction, which has to be exercised in accordance with law based upon facts scenario of each case.

JUDGMENT :

The petitioner is accused in the complaint instituted by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘N.I. Act’). She has invoked the restrictive jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) for quashing of this Complaint bearing No.83-3 of 2015 (Bal Krishan Rawat Versus Shailza Huddone) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jubbal, District Shimla.

2. Facts in brief:-

2(i). The respondent preferred complaint under Section 138 of the Act on 06.03.2013. Petitioner was accused therein. The averments in the complaint are that the respondent/complainant is Agriculturist and Horticulturist by profession. In September, 2011, the respondent gave a sum of Rs.50 Lakh to help out the husband of the petitioner. The amount was lent on loan to petitioner’s husband in order to help him to take apple orchard on contract basis in District Kinnaur. The complainant was promised return of the loan amount by the petitioner within a couple of months. The respondent/ complainant had accordingly lent Rs.50 Lakh to the petitioner. For discharging this liability, the petitioner/ accused issued post-dated Cheque bearing No.368023, dated 30.10.2012, for Rs.50 Lakh drawn from State Bank of India, Shimla of a particular savings bank account in favour of the respondent/complainant.

2(ii). It was further stated in the complaint that the cheque was presented by the complainant in the Bank, however, it was dishonoured by the Bank on 27.12.2012 for want of sufficient funds. Memo in this regard was issued by the Bank to the respondent/complainant on 02.01.2013. After completing necessary codal formalities, the complaint was preferred by the respondent on 06.03.2013.

3. The petitioner/accused seeks quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the complainant has not been able to disclose the source of funds, out of which the amount under cheque was alleged to have been loaned out to her. It has been emphasized by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that the respondent/complainant was not in a position or capacity to lend loan amount of Rs.50 Lakh, as alleged in the complaint. That provisions of Section 118 of the Act have not been complied with inasmuch as the reason for lending the alleged loan amount and the requisite meticulous details thereof have not been mentioned in the complaint. For these reasons, prayer has been made for quashing the complaint made under Section 138 of the Act.

Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the complaint was instituted by the respondent during the year 2013, whereafter, the petitioner/accused successfully evaded service and eventually non-bailable warrants were issued against her by the learned Trial Court during the year 2019. At that time, the petitioner/accused preferred Cr.MMO Nos.187 and 188 of 2019 for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued against her by the learned Trial Court. Since the petitioner/accused undertook to appear before the learned Trial Court, therefore, non-bailable warrants issued against her were ordered to be recalled in terms of the decisions dated 10.09.2019 rendered in the aforesaid Cr.MMOs. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant further contended that the petitioner/accused is yet to lead her evidence. Her contentions are to be examined by the learned Trial Court on the basis of evidence to be adduced by her. That the arguments advanced for the petitioner/ accused at this stage are premature. Prayer was accordingly made for dismissal of the petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC in favour of the petitioner. This is for the following reason:-

It is well settled that Section 482 Cr.PC endows restrictive jurisdiction, which has to be exercised in accordance with law based upon the facts scenario of each case.

In the instant case, the petitioner/accused has