Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2023 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 950 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - discharge of any legally enforceable debt or not - rebuttal of presumption - whether the amount due and payable on the part of petitioners towards the complainants, even as per the case of complainants, was less than the amount of cheques in question? HELD THAT:- The essentials to constitute an offence under Section 138 of NI Act were discussed by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL VERSUS HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL & ANR. [2022 (10) TMI 424 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that For the commission of an offence under Section 138, the cheque that is dishonoured must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the arguments raised by learned counsel for respondent that to constitute an offence under Section 138 of NI Act, the cheque in question should have been issued in discharge of some legally enforceable debt. However, it is also well-settled through precedents of Hon’ble Apex Court that the issue as to whether or not a cheque was issued in discharge of legally recoverable debt is to decided during the course of trial and the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act ought not to be quashed on such grounds at pre-trial stage. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2022 (4) TMI 1434 - SUPREME COURT] wherein it was observed Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial Court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited. This Court notes that in the present case, the petitioners herein have not disputed the issuance of cheques in question including the signatures on the cheque, date on the cheque as well as the amount mentioned in the cheques, though they have disputed the purpose or reason behind issuance of cheques, which as per the petitioners, was not to discharge any liability or pay any legally enforceable debt. In these circumstances, there is merit in the argument of learned counsel for complainants that the presumption under Section 118(a) and 139 of NI Act shall be in the favour of complainants, since the issuance of cheques is not disputed and it has to be presumed that the cheques in question had been issued towards some legally enforceable debt. This Court is of the opinion that the issues raised before this Court can only be decided by the learned Trial Court at appropriate stage, on their own merits. Since a prima facie case exists against the petitioners under Sections 138/141 of NI Act, there are no reasons to quash the impugned complaint cases and orders framing notice against the petitioners. Petition dismissed.
|