Latest - TMI e-Newsletter
New User/ Regiser
2022 (9) TMI 730 - Indian Laws
Dishonor of Cheque - date of issuance of statutory notice - It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that before expiry of 45 days from the date of return of cheques the complaint had been filed - Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Petitioner herein had appeared before the trial Court and the Trial Court had proceeded till the stage of 313 Cr.P.C., and at that stage, these Petitions had been filed. When the trial had commenced, it is the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS BHAJAN LAL [1990 (11) TMI 386 - SUPREME COURT] that the High Courts shall not exercise the discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings and only it can be exercised such discretion before commencing of the trial.
On perusal of the typed set furnished by the Petitioner herein/the Accused before the trial Court, it is found that he had not replied to the statutory notice issued by the Respondent. If the accounts of the Petitioner had been blocked by the Income Tax Authorities, he ought to have informed the Respondent/Complainant regarding the blocking of the account by the Income Tax Authorities. Therefore, the cheques need not be presented. In the alternative, after issuance of the cheques by the Petitioner herein when the accounts of the Petitioner were blocked by the Income Tax Authorities, the Petitioner herein as Accused before the Trial Court ought to have informed the Respondent/Complainant to return the cheques as the accounts had been blocked - the Petitioner herein/Accused before the trial Court is not liable for the dishonor of the cheques. If that warning had been given by way of reply by the Petitioner herein, the Respondent would not have filed the Criminal Complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Petitioner herein remained silent after receipt of statutory notice from the Respondent/Complainant.