Back
KARAMJIT SINGH
Rajesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Ranbir Singh Rana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks quashing of complaint under ni act. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner argues complaint is for time barred debt. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. presumption of cheque being for discharge of liability. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court cannot quash complaints involving disputed facts. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. petition dismissed; trial court proceedings to continue. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Karamjit Singh, J.
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal complaint No.14 /2017 dated 15.2.2017/10.4.2018 Ranbir Singh Rana v. Rajesh Kumar under sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short 'NI Act') pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Assandh District Karnal (Annexure P-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom including summoning order dated 30.5.2017 (Annexure P-2).
2. The further proceedings against the petitioner were stayed vide order dated 24.5.2019 whereby notice of motion was issued to the respondents. In response to the said notice, complainant/respondent No.1 put in appearance through his counsel, while respondent No.2 was represented by the State counsel
Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
Dishonour of cheque – In exceptional circumstances, Court may take notice of attending circumstances to conclude that continuance of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court, or where qu....
The legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act favors the complainant, and factual disputes must be resolved at trial, not pre-trial.
The legal enforceability of debt, time-barred debt, and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act are disputed questions of fact, requiring evidence and trial to determine, and should not be de....
A debtor's issuance of a cheque acknowledges a debt; questions of enforceability or time-bar must be determined through evidence, not prior to trial.
The issuance of a cheque implies liability under the NI Act, and courts should not quash complaints based on disputed facts without trial.
The legal enforceability of a debt, including whether it is time-barred, is a question of fact requiring trial evidence, and cannot be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
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
