9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 905 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - insufficiency of funds - seeking leave of the Court to summon bank officials along with record pertaining to the concerned bank account for the financial years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 - Section 311 Cr.P.C. read with Section 91 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - The singular reason for filing an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner was to prove through the bank officials and the financial statements that there were sufficient funds in the bank account pertaining to which the dishonoured cheques were issued, so as to set up a defence against the alleged offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. As rightly pointed out by counsel for Respondent No. 2, learned MM has noted in the impugned order itself that the dishonour of cheques was not on account of insufficiency of funds or exceeding arrangement. In fact, the learned Court has categorically noted, after referring to bank return memos Exs. CW-1/8, CW-1/9, CW-1/10 and CW1/11 and the evidence of Respondent No. 2 s witness CW-1 that reason for dishonour of the cheques in question was payment stopped by drawer . The apprehension of the Petitioner is misplaced and no infirmity is found with the impugned order, warranting interference by this Court. Moreover, Respondent No. 2 has reiterated its stand that the funds maintained by the Company/accused were neither insufficient nor the amounts under the impugned cheques exceeded arrangement. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the setting aside of an impugned order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in a case related to dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The primary issue revolves around the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C. seeking to summon bank officials to prove the availability of funds in the account from which the cheques were issued. Details of the Judgment: 1. Background and Allegations: The Petitioner, a private limited company, entered into a lease agreement with Respondent No. 2, another private limited company, for a property in Noida. Disputes arose when the Petitioner stopped payment for rent cheques due to alleged fraud by Respondent No. 2. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonored cheques. 2. Application Under Section 311 Cr.P.C.: The Petitioner sought to summon bank officials to prove that the cheques were not dishonored due to insufficient funds but because of a dispute with Respondent No. 2. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed this application, leading to the present petition to set aside the order. 3. Arguments and Findings: The Petitioner argued that summoning bank officials was crucial to establish the defense against the alleged offense. However, Respondent No. 2 contended that the cheques were dishonored due to 'payment stopped' by the drawer, not due to insufficient funds. The Court found merit in Respondent No. 2's argument, noting that the cheques were dishonored for reasons other than insufficient funds or exceeding arrangement. 4. Judgment and Disposition: The Court upheld the impugned order, stating that there was no need to summon bank witnesses as the reason for dishonor was clear. Respondent No. 2 affirmed that the funds in the account were sufficient, and no interference with the order was warranted. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, along with the pending application. This summary encapsulates the key issues, arguments, and findings of the judgment without revealing specific party names or personal details.
|
