Back
Refuses to Quash Cheque Bounce Case Against Businessman
The has reaffirmed the sanctity of the trial process in cases involving the . In a recent judgment, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal refused to against a businessman, holding that defenses related to misplaced cheques and stop-payment instructions are issues of fact that must be adjudicated through evidence during trial, rather than at the stage of .
Case Background
The dispute involves a complaint filed by Vipan Kumar Mehta against Sanjay Gupta, a liquor vend contractor, under . Mr. Mehta alleged that Mr. Gupta had issued a cheque for ₹65,68,785 in discharge of a debt arising from financial assistance provided for his business. When the cheque was presented for payment, it was dishonoured with the remark "Payment Stopped by Drawer." Following the statutory notice period, the Magistrate in Rajouri initiated proceedings against Mr. Gupta.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner, Sanjay Gupta, argued that the cheque in question was part of a book he had reported as misplaced in , long before the alleged date of issuance. He claimed to have issued stop-payment instructions to his bank and asserted that no existed between the parties. He further contended that the complaint was an abuse of the legal process, citing alleged associations between the complainant and other business entities.
In opposition, the respondent maintained that the transaction was legitimate and that funds had been transferred through official banking channels. He argued that the petitioner had not denied his signature on the instrument and that the plea of a "misplaced cheque" was merely a tactical attempt to evade liability.
Legal Analysis
The High Court underscored that at the stage of issuing process, a Magistrate is only required to form a satisfaction that an offence has been committed. Justice Nargal noted that under , there exists a that a cheque received by a holder is for the discharge of a .
The Court observed that while this presumption is , the burden of proof rests on the accused during the trial. Attempting to decide these factual disputes during the stage of a quashing petition under , would essentially amount to a "," which falls outside the scope of the Court's .
Key Observations
-
"Whether the cheque had in fact been lost, whether it was voluntarily issued by the petitioner... are all disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS."
-
"Significantly, the petitioner does not dispute his signatures on the cheque in question. Once the execution of the cheque is not denied, the under comes into operation."
-
"The preserved under Section 528 of the BNSS is intended to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, such jurisdiction cannot be invoked to undertake an appreciation of disputed facts."
Court's Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the lower court's decision to issue process. By directing the trial to proceed, the Court has made it clear that procedural mechanisms like quashing petitions cannot be utilized to bypass the evidentiary requirements of the trial court. The accused remains free to present his defense—including the evidence of the reported loss of the cheque book—before the trial judge, who is now tasked with resolving the matter on its merits without the influence of the High Court's observations.
