Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Lal Rajiv Ranjan Nath Shahdeo @ Rajiv Shahdeo @ Rajeev Shahdeo – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra S. Singh assisted by Mr. Somitra Baroi learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned counsel for the State and Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for O.P. No. 2.
2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance dated 21.08.2017 in connection with Complaint Case No. 281 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga.
3. Complaint was filed alleging therein that the complainant is a businessman and has a shop namely, Sahu Enterprises and the petitioner is engaged in construction work and got his firm registered as M/s Mahamaya Construction. On the request of the petitioner, the complainant agreed to supply various building materials to the accused on credit on the assurance of the petitioner and whenever he will receive payment from the government, he will clear the entire dues. The complainant supplied various articles and building materials to the petitioner worth Rs. 5 lakh and when the complainant started demanding money from the accused, the accused in discharge of his legal debt issued a cheque bearing no. 711083 dated 11.08
The power under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing criminal proceedings should not be exercised when there is a disputed question of fact to be decided by the trial court.
The order taking cognizance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must include essential details regarding the cheque return memo and the disputed amount.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defence of a cheque being issued for security and not for discharge of debt or liability would be a triable issue and not a ground for qua....
The main legal point established is that the intention of cheating and non-payment under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code must be proven, and the dishonour of a cheque can lead to maintaina....
The legal provisions of the NI Act create a deeming offence for dishonour of cheques and establish a presumption of debt or liability upon the holder of the cheque, with a reverse onus cast on the ac....
A complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is not maintainable against an individual when the issuing company and its directors are not included as accused.
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
