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 quashing stage.

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

1. The petitioner (accused before learned Trial Court) has filed the present petition for quashing of complaint No.52-3 of 2019 bearing registration No.39/2019 titled Navneet Sharma vs. Arun Kumar and the order dated 30.01.2019 summoning the accused. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the complainant filed a complaint against the accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short ‘NI Act’). It was asserted that the complainant is the registered owner of a private passenger vehicle bearing registration No. HP-35C-3300. He sold it to the accused on 10.09.2020 for Rs.7,50,000/-. The accused issued a post-dated cheque of Rs.7,50,000/- in the discharge of his legal liability. The complainant presented the cheque before his Bank but it was dishonoured with an endorsement of ‘insufÏcient funds’. The complainant served a notice upon the accused but the accused failed to pay the amount despite the receipt of the notice; hence, a complaint was filed against the accused for taking action against him as per the law.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused and passed an order on 30.01.2019 to summon him.

4. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present petition asserting that the learned Trial Court erred in summoning the accused. The complainant had filed an undertaking before the Notary Public stating that he had received full and final payment from the petitioner/accused for the vehicle. The accused applied for a No Objection Certificate, which was issued and the vehicle was registered with the Registration and Licensing Authority, Sundernagar. The ownership was also transferred in the name of the accused. The complainant sent a false notice. The accused sent a reply denying his liability. The complainant filed a false complaint. Learned Trial Court summoned the accused without complying with the requirements of Section 138 of the NI Act. He filed an application to stop the proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The cheque has not been issued on the account number of the accused. The complainant filed a false complaint and its continuation would amount to the abuse of the process of the Court; hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the complaint be quashed.

5. The respondent/complainant filed a reply reproducing the facts mentioned in the complaint. It was asserted that power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is extraordinary, which has to be exercised sparingly. The facts in the present case do not warrant the exercise of such power. It was specifically denied that the accused had made the full and final payment of the sale consideration. It was asserted that there is nothing on record to show that the cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the complainant. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard Mr. Bonit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Rajul Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant and Ms Jyoti Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank.

7. Mr. Bonit Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheque was not drawn on an account maintained by the complainant an d the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is not maintainable. He relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Ameer Shah versus the State of Kerala , 2017: KER :28375 in support of his submission.

8. Mr. Rajul Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent No.1/complainant submitted that the Court should not conduct an inquiry regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of the contents of the complaint in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr. P.