Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 395 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - enforceable debt or not - applicant argued that the impugned cheque was not against any liability - HELD THAT:- In the present case, there is a cheque issued by applicant Shalu Mehrotra for payment of Rs. Three lacs, it was presented for its payment, but was dishonoured by a Bank memo, then after a notice of demand by way of registered post was issued and the same was returned with endorsement of refusal. After receipt back of the same, within the stipulated period this complaint was filed. The Magistrate took cognizance over it by registering it as a complaint case. Then after an enquiry was made, wherein statement of complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. was in reiteration of contention of complaint and u/s 202 Cr.P.C. there was an affidavit annexing all those documentary evidence and on the basis of these evidence collected by the Magistrate in its enquiry a prima-facie case for offence punishable u/s 138 N.I. Act was made out. Accordingly, the applicant Shalu Mehrotra was summoned for above offence punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Saving of inherent power of High Court, as given under Section 482 Cr.P.C, provides that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Meaning thereby this inherent power is with High Court (I) to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any other order under this Code (II) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court (III) or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. An application for setting aside summoning order was moved before the same court, which had passed impugned summoning order, and the same was rejected on the ground that no additional evidence was there. This was challenged in revision, wherein the revisional court has rightly dismissed the revision. The law cited and argued by learned counsel for applicant is also of this fact that source of income is to be explained by complainant when asked by accused i.e. it is to be asked by the accused at an appropriate stage while examining on oath is being done and the same is to be explained by complainant. At this juncture of seeing veracity of the summoning order, the above stage has not come - thus, there is no abuse of process of law in passing the impugned orders either by Magistrate Court or by revisional court. The prayer for quashing summoning order as well as proceeding of the aforesaid complaint case is refused - application dismissed.
|