Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
M/s Atma Tube Products Ltd
Versus
Tata Steel Ltd.
Criminal MISCELLANEOUS No. 19588 of 2005,
Decided On : MAY 21, 2008
(B) Criminal Law--Quashing of complaint--Dishonour of cheque--Complaint against quashing of complaint--Inherent jurisdiction--Evidence in the complaint has already been recorded--Delay in filing the petition--Fatal--The appreciation of evidence does not fall within the domain of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of Complaint--Petition dismissed--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482.
(C) Dishonour of cheque--Complaint against quashing of complaint--Creditor filed civil suit for recovery of cheque amount--Proceeding for under Section 138 of the Act are not in the nature to recovery proceedings--It is not a good ground to quash the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 172--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482. (Para 18)
(D) Dishonour of cheque--Complaint is alleged to be time barred--Merely on the oral submission, the complaint cannot be quashed--It was incumbent on the petitioner to have taken the same to the logical end by referring to material to clinch the issue--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482--Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141. (Para 22)
(E) Dishonour of cheque--Quashing of complaint--Once the petitioner company itself is clubbing the issues and raising them together in all the complaints, even if one of the complaints is quashed the same will be of no use as the trial court will consider all the issues after conclusion of the evidence--|Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138. (Para 14)
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 13 petitions bearing Criminal Misc.Nos.19585M, 19588M, 19591M, 19594M, 19597M, 19600M, 19603M, 19606M, 19609M, 19624M, 19627M, 19630M and 19633M of 2005 involving similar questions of law and fact.
2. The facts are being extracted from Criminal Misc.No.19588M of 2005.
3. The prayer in the petition is for quashing of complaint No. 3 dated 2.1.1998 filed under Section 138 read with Sections 141 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the summoning order dated 7.3.1988 (Annexure P2). The complaint was filed for dishonour of cheque No. 825461 dated 18.10.1997, fora sum of Rs. 8,80,500 (Annexure P1).
4. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent company filed the complaint against the petitioners under Section 138 read with Section 141 and 142 of the Act. Initially, it was filed against four accused, however, except the present petitioners, the impugned complaint qua other two accused was quashed by this Court, since they were not found guilty.
5. The petitioner No. 1 accused (for short the Company) is engaged in the business of manufacturing E.R.W. precision Steel Tubes and C.R.C.A. strips. The petitioner company had been purchasing raw materials from the respondent complainant company on terms and conditions entered into between the parties. The business was going on since 1985-86. In fact the entire payment was being made by way of local cheques, bank guarantee and postdated cheques. However, the cheque facility granted to the petitioner accused Company was withdrawn on account of dishonour of two cheques on 30.5.1997. The complaint in the present case was filed on account of dishonour of one cheque amounting to Rs. 8,80,500.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present complaint filed by the respondent and all proceedings sub-sequent thereto are liable to be quashed on various grounds raised by him. The submission that after dishonour of two cheques on May 30, 1997, the petitioner company immediately made payment to the respondent company of the dishonoured cheques and requested for restoration of the cheque facility. The respondent company did not agree to that and even the cheques which were lying with it were returned. Some of the cheques, which were given in advance to the respondent company, were not returned inspite of request by the petitioner company. Further reference has been made to a civil suit filed by the respondent company on 10.2.1999 claiming a sum of Rs. 3,41,14,853.92 including interest amounting to Rs.77,91,958.93 whereas the cheques for dishonour of which bunch of complaints have been filed are of amount more than that i.e. Rs. 3,83,90,000. Meaning thereby that the amount as is forming part of various complaints was not due from the petitioners as on that date.
7. He further submitted that the dispute in the present case is of civil nature and present proceedings could not be initiated especially when the respondent company had already filed a civil suit for recovery of the amount and in fact that suit was also dismissed by the Court below. The cheques in question which were presented were not given against any specific bills rather the same were retained by the respondent company and were used to secure payment of the alleged dues and in that eventuality complaint under Section 138 of the Act was not maintainable. Still further, the submission is that the petitioner No. 2 would not be liable as it has not been stated that he was the person responsible for and in-charge of the affairs of the petitioner company.
8. Additional argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Misc.Nos.l9585M, 19588M, 19591M, 19594M, 19597M of 2005 is that the complaints filed in this bunch of five cases are liable to be quashed for the simple reason that the same are barred by time. In fact after the presentation of the cheque on the first occasion when the same was dis
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
