Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRENDER SINGH
Anju Tomar – Appellant
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Commercial Corporation – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Virender Singh, J.
Petitioner-Anju Tomar has filed the present petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’), for quashing of complaint, bearing No.RBT 615-3 of 18/15, titled as ‘M/s Himachal Pradesh Commercial CorporationVs. Anju Tomar’, filed by the respondent, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’), as well as, the summoning order dated 07.10.2015, passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.3, Shimla (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), along with the proceedings resultant thereto.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court.
3. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present petition, may be summed up, as under:-
4. The complainant has filed the complaint, under Section 138 of the NI Act, upon which, the learned trial Court has issued the process, vide order dated 07.10.2015. The accused has challenged the said summoning order dated 07.10.2015, on the ground that the complaint, which has been
The court held that at the summoning stage, only a prima facie case is to be considered, and the defence cannot be evaluated, emphasizing the need for evidence during trial.
Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
The legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act favors the complainant, and factual disputes must be resolved at trial, not pre-trial.
The court reiterated that issues around cheque liability under Section 138 NI Act must be decided at trial, underscoring the necessity for allegations in complaints to be accepted as true at the quas....
Point of Law : Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide, has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specificall....
The court quashed criminal proceedings under the IPC due to mala fide intent behind filing the complaint, after a valid earlier complaint was filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The High Court cannot quash a Section 138 complaint based on defenses that require factual evidence; such defenses must be raised during the trial process.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
