Point of Law : When disputed questions of facts are involved which need to be adjudicated after the parties adduce evidence, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act ought not to have been quashed by the High Court by taking recourse to Section 482 Cr.P.C

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 561-A Cr.P.C for quashing the proceedings pending before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, City Judge, Jammu as by virtue of order dated 12.03.2001, the Magistrate has issued process against the petitioners while taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).

2. The complaint filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners pertains to alleged issuance of cheque in favour of the respondent to the tune of Rs.30 lacs purportedly as discharge of the liability of the petitioners towards the respondent-complainant for executing the work to the full satisfaction of the petitioners-accused. As the cheque was not encashed when presented to the concerned Bank and the cheque amount was not paid despite notice from the respondent within the statutory period, the complaint came to be filed by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioners. The cheque is stated to have been issued by the respondent No.2 on behalf of the company-respondent No.1.

3. The complaint filed and the subsequent proceedings initiated through impugned order against the petitioners stand challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the cheque in question was made to be signed by the respondent through coercion and that the respondent had himself admitted through letter dated 27.11.2000 of the final bill of Rs.1,48,192.92 prior to the filing of the complaint. This letter indicated that no liability of the petitioners remained towards the respondent after the final bill. The complaint was outcome of the cancellation of work which was allotted to the respondent by the company. It is further submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are absurd and inherently improbable. The work was being executed on behalf of Government of India and no such transaction could be done by the petitioners as projected by way of raising of claim through cheque purportedly issued by the petitioners in favour of the respondent.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 case titled Inder Mohan Goswami & another Vs. State of Uttaranchal & others; and (2013) 3 SCC 330 case titled Rajiv Thapar & others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor. In both the cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court quashed the criminal proceedings keeping in view the peculiar facts of both the cases. In the authority of 2013 (supra), the court also held that “the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C, must make a just and rightful choice. This is not a stage of evaluating the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations leveled by the prosecution/complainant against the accused. Likewise, it is not a stage for determining how weighty the defenses raised on behalf of the accused is. Even if the accused is successful in showing some suspicion or doubt, in the allegations leveled by the prosecution/complainant, it would be impermissible to discharge the accused before trial. This is so, because it would result in giving finality to the accusations leveled by the prosecution/complainant, without allowing the prosecution or the complainant to adduce evidence to substantiate the same. The converse is, however, not true, because even if trial is proceeded with, the accused is not subjected to any irreparable consequences. The accused would still be in a position to succeed, by establishing his defenses by producing evidence in accordance with law.”

5. In 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 case titled State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down some guidelines where the High Court can exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code. There cannot be any dispute to what has been enunciated by the Apex Court in this celebrated judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also taken the court th