9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the impugned summoning order was passed without application of mind. He has primarily contended that the cheque in question was materially altered by the complainant by changing the date for revalidation without the consent and knowledge of the petitioners. He has further submitted that in view of the mandate of Section 87 NI Act, the cheque had became void. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Veera Exports v. T. Kalavathy reported as (2002) 1 SCC 97. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that in the present case, the offence under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Park Road, New Delhi signed by petitioner No. 2 who is the mother/authorized signatory of petitioner No. 1 by changing the date on the said cheque. On presentation, the cheque amount was initially credited but, later on, because of protest made by petitioner No. 1, the said credit entry was reversed by the Bank in favour of petitioner No. 1. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 had earlier given the cheque in issue to the complainant as security deposit. 6. The short issue involved is of applicability of Section 87 NI Act to the facts of the present case and whether the proceedings pending before the Trial Court are liable to be quashed in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. At this stage, I deem it apposite to refer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uce evidence in trial in support of their assertion and to rebut the presumption. This Court deems it profitable to allude to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar reported as (2019) 4 SCC 197. "33. A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the che ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also cannot be used as a ground to resist the right of the payee or the holder thereof. The Supreme Court went on to observe that whether the alteration was made by the drawer himself or with his consent is a disputed question of fact, which needs to be established by adducing evidence during trial. 10. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the 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, is concerned, 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 emai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
