IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Nitin Mahajan - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-14696 of 2021 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-05-2023
Negotiable Instruments Act - Validity of Cheque - Section 138 of NI Act - [Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881] - The court quashed the proceedings as the cheque was presented in the bank much beyond its validity, and the validity of a cheque goes to the root of initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings arising from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner argued that the proceedings were vitiated as the cheque in question was presented in the bank much beyond its validity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found substance in the petitioner's arguments and quashed the complaint and all subsequent proceedings as the cheque was presented in the bank beyond its validity, which goes to the root of initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Issues: Validity of the cheque, presentation of the cheque within the validity period, and the applicability of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The validity of a cheque goes to the root of initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presentation of the cheque within its validity period is essential to bring into effect the substantive provision of Section 138 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for quashing of proceedings arising out of Complaint bearing NACT No.540, dated 21.12.2018, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), filed by the Respondent along with summoning order dated 21.02.2019 passed by Ld. JMIC-cum-CJ(JD), Hansi against the petitioner with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. Point of contention in the present case is very short and learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings are vitiated from the very beginning on account of the fact that a bare perusal of the original Complaint (Annexure P-4) reveals that the Complainant has himself admitted the cheque in question was issued on 18.05.2018, which was ultimately dishonoured by Banker of the accused on 08.11.2018. He further submits that though the complainant has very conveniently avoided mentioning the date on which such cheque was presented for encashment, but it was apparent that the cheque had already become invalid upon expiry of three months of its issuance i.e. on 17.08.2018, especially, in view of the RBI Notification No.RBI/2011-12/251 DBOD.AML BC.No.47/14.01.001 /2011-12 dated 04.11.2011. In support of his submission he places reliance upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in the matter of “Ansh Chugh vs. Pradeep Gupta”, CRL.M.C.2973/2018 & Crl.M.A.No.10513/2018, in which proceedings were quashed specifically in view of the background that non-presentation of the cheque to the drawee bank, within the period specified, absolves the person issuing the same of his criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the complainant had taken a sum of Rs. 9,07,000/- from the respondent in the name of sending him to Europe and to provide him employment there subject to condition that in case, he could not fulfill his promise then he shall return the amount. Subsequently when he could not send the respondent to Europe, in the name of refund of amount and to discharge the above said existing & legally enforceable outstanding liability, he issued this stale dated cheque in favour of the respondent. He however does not deny the fact that the cheque was dishonored approximately two and half months after the date of its issuance.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the paper book of the case and I find substance in the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. This is an admitted fact that cheque in question was issued on 18.05.2018, which was ultimately dishonoured by Banker of the accused on 8.11.2018. In view of RBI circular dated 04.11.2011, maximum validity period for a cheque could be for 3 months only and even on the cheque in question it was specified that the same is valid for 3 months only. Now in this context, it would be relevant to peruse Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, relevant part of which is reproduced below:
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank wit
The validity of a cheque is essential for the initiation of proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presentation of the cheque within its validity period is crucial for the applicab....
A cheque must be presented within six months for a valid complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act; statutory presumption applies if no reply to the notice is given.
Dishonour of cheque – When there are specific allegations in complaint disclosing ingredient of offence, quashing of proceeding by exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by High Court is i....
Proviso (b) to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, reads as payee in due course of cheque, makes a demand for payment of amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to drawer of cheque [wit....
The court clarified that for criminal liability under Section 138, a cheque must be presented to the drawee bank within six months from its date.
Quashing of FIR is an exception rather than an ordinary rule, and the High Court should exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C sparingly with circumspection.
A cheque must be presented within its validity period for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act to apply, and failure to do so renders the complaint inadmissible.
The cause of action for filing a complaint under Section 138 arises after 15 days from the service of the demand notice, not from the notice itself.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.