2019 Supreme(P&H) 2552
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Kailash Vati - Appellant
Vs.
Ludhiana Beverages Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CRM-M No. 2607 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On: 27-08-2019
For the Appellant :Shakti Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Divyastuti Parsoon, Ankita Sambyal and Rujhan Dhawan, Advocates
Headnote:
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Quashing of criminal complaint - Blank signed undated cheque - Material alteration - [BLANK SIGNED UNDATED CHEQUE] - [CRIMINAL COMPLAINT] - [Section 6, Section 13, Section 87, Section 118, Section 138, Section 139] - The court examined the legal provisions of the Act, including the definition of a cheque, negotiable instrument, and the effect of material alteration. It emphasized the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque and the date on which a cheque is drawn. The court also discussed the judgments cited by the parties and their applicability to the case, ultimately concluding that the complaint should not be quashed.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a bottler of Coca Cola, received two blank signed undated cheques from the accused as security for outstanding dues. The cheques were dishonored, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused sought quashing of the complaint, arguing that the cheques were not for existing and legally recoverable liability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint should not be quashed as the cheques were issued for discharge of debt or other liability, and the date on which a cheque is drawn refers to the date mentioned in the cheque. It also emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 should not be exercised to quash the complaint when there are questions requiring adjudication.
Issues: The issues involved whether proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 can be quashed for blank signed undated cheques, the date on which a cheque is drawn, and the effect of material alteration under Section 87.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque applies unless rebutted, the date on which a cheque is drawn refers to the date mentioned in the cheque, and filling in the blank of a cheque does not always constitute material alteration. It also emphasized that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 should not be exercised to quash the complaint when there are questions requiring adjudication.
Final Decision: The petition seeking quashing of the complaint was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to adjudicate the complaint independently without being influenced by the observations made by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. The questions which this Court is called upon to answer in the present petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 praying for quashing of the criminal complaint filed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881"), are:-
i) Whether proceedings initiated under section 138 of the Act of 1881, are liable to be quashed in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 if it is undisputed that blank signed undated cheque was issued by the drawer?
ii) If date on which the cheque was signed and date mentioned in the column meant for filling up date in the cheque are different, What would be the date on which the cheque is drawn?
iii) Whether filling up of date and amount in the already signed cheque would result in material alteration within the meaning of Section 87 of the Act of 1881, hence, renders the same void?
2. Some facts are required to be noticed. Complainant-respondent company claims to be authorized bottler (running operating a bottling plant) of Coca Cola company, Atlanta. Accused is a proprietor of M/s. Kaka Ram, Dabbi Bazar, Chandigarh Road, Samrala District Ludhiana. It is the assertion of the complainant that accused while submitting the Distribution/AMC profile, also delivered to the complainant, two account payee blank/undated Multi City cheques drawn on Bank of Baroda, Samrala favouring complainant M/s. Ludhiana Beverages Private Limited (complainant) under her signatures in the capacity of proprietor, to be utilised against any outstanding liability at any time. It was assured that these cheques would be honoured on then-presentation to the bank as and when utilized by the complainant for realisation of its outstanding dues. The cheques were issued by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability towards the complainant of the outstanding dues as per Books of Accounts of the parties. Letter through which cheques in question were allegedly delivered to the complainant is extracted as under:-
"Please find enclosed herewith following Account payee blank/undated cheques duly signed by authorized person to be utilized against outstanding liability Due to you.
Sr.No. Cheque No. Bank Name
000380 Bank of Baroda
000381 Bank of Baroda
We assure you that these cheque will be honoured on presentation as and when utilized by you for realisation of our outstanding.
In case these cheques are not honoured on presentation you have every right to take legal action as you may considered necessary for realisation of amount due from us."
3. According to the company-complainant, a sum of Rs. 13,88,725/- was due and outstanding against the accused and before presentation of the cheque, the company discussed the matter with accused and after reconciling the accounts, a sum of Rs. 13,88,725/- was found due and payable. In spite of request made for clearing the outstanding dues, accused did not come forward to pay the outstanding amount despite of repeated reminders, and, therefore, complainant filled one cheque for Rs. 4,88,725/- and second cheque for Rs. 9,00,000/- in terms of Distribution/AMC Profile and informed the accused over telephone and she assured that cheques would be honoured. The cheques in question, on presentation were dishonoured with the remarks "Accounts Closed" and, therefore, after service of notice, which was duly replied, complaint was filed in which accused-petitioner was summoned.
4. Petitioner-accused has filed this petition, at initial stage on being summoned, seeking quashing of complaint and summoning order, on the ground that since admittedly, the cheques in question which were dishonoured, were Undated signed blank cheques delivered at the time of submitting Distribution/AMC profile, therefore, proceedings under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 cannot be initiated as the cheque in question does not fall within the sweep of cheques mentioned in Section 138 of the Act of 1881. Learned c