Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2021 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 88 - HC - Indian LawsDishonor of Cheque - material alteration in the cheque or not - change of date for revalidation without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners - void cheque as per Section 87 of NI Act or not - ingredients of the offence under Section 138 NI Act present or not - HELD THAT:- Section 87 NI Act consists of two parts. The first part indicates that in case the alteration is made with the consent of both the parties, they would be disentitled to complain against such alteration. Only when a cheque is altered by the payee or holder without the consent of the drawer, the issue of cheque becoming void would arise. In the present case, it is contended that the material alteration was done in the cheque by the complainant without the consent of the petitioners. On the other hand, in the complaint, it has been alleged that it was petitioner No. 1 who re-handed over the cheque containing the material alteration. It is apparent that the factum of ‘who carried out the material alteration’ is disputed and a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court while exercising its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners would need to adduce evidence in trial in support of their assertion and to rebut the presumption. The contention of petitioners that initially on presentation, the cheque in question was encashed and the amount was credited and as such no offence under Section 138 NI Act is made out - HELD THAT:- The same is found fallacious and therefore rejected. The complainant has alleged that initially when the cheque in question was presented, the amount was credited to his account. However, in pursuance of an email dated 12.03.2020 sent by petitioner No. 1 to the Bank threatening legal action and a further police complaint, the transaction entry was reversed in favour of the petitioners and money was debited from the complainant’s account with the net effect that the amount under the cheque remained unpaid - this Court is of the opinion that the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 NI Act are made out. The last contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that no proceedings are maintainable against petitioner No. 1 as he is not a signatory to the cheque in question and the complaint lacks material particulars - HELD THAT:- The cheque was issued from an account that was jointly held by both the petitioners. As per the complainant’s stance, it was petitioner No. 1 who had re-handed over the altered cheque signed by petitioner No. 2. In the complaint, it has been stated that all the dealings had taken place with petitioner No. 1. In view of the above, there are no merit in the contention and the same is rejected. Petition dismissed.
|