TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. Petition dismissed. - Crl. O.P. Nos. 19273, 20821, 20841, 20989 of 2021, Crl. M.P. Nos. 11317, 11319, 10567, 11380, 11383, 11331 and 11332 of 2021 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2022 - Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup , J. For the Petitioner : D. M. Bhalla for Athiban Vijay A. K. For the Respondents : R. Nalliyappan ORDER These Crimi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsement Account Blocked . It does not specifically state under whose instructions the account was blocked. When the notice was served on the Petitioner, on behalf of the Complaint, the Petitioner had not replied. Before the reply, the complaints were filed. Therefore, the complaints are the premature complaints and the same have to be quashed. 5. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following rulings: 5.1. In the case of Vijay Chaudhary vs. Gyan Chand Jain reported in 2008 (104) DRJ 349 wherein the High Court of Delhi has held as under: Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138-- Payment stopped because of attachment of the bank account by an order of the Court-- When the cheque is dishonoured for ostensible reasons different from those specifically provided under the Act, it is necessary to establish that the ostensible reason is one attributable to a voluntary act/omission of the drawer, and that the same is merely a ruse to avoid payment of the cheque-- For an account to be maintained by an account holder, it is essential that he is in a position to operate the said account by either depositing monies therein or b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi) and Another reported in 2022 SAR (Cri.) 599, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under: R-Dishonour of Cheque-Complaint at a pre-trial stage-Relief of quashing-Rightly refused. R-Dishonour of Cheque-Presumption and Rebuttal-Legal presumption of issue of cheque in discharge of liability-Can be rebutted only during the trial. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Secs. 138, 139 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sec. 482-Dishounour of Cheque-Presumption and Rebuttal-Quashing of Complaint-Legal presumption of issue of cheque in discharge of liability, can be rebutted only during the trial-Not judicious for the quashing court to carry out a detailed enquiry into merits of the disputed facts-Relief of quashing a complaint at a pre-trial stage rightly refused. 7.2. In the unreported decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Shree Maruthi Yarns and others vs. M/s. Sri Ramakrishna Mills (Coimbatore) Limited [Crl.O.P. No. 27778 of 2006, dated 05.10.2007] it has been observed as follows: 17. Guided by the principles set out in the above said decision of the Apex Court, this Court has to allow the trial Court to proceed with the trial and dispose of the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 19.12.2013 much after the issuance of statutory notice. That being so, this court is not inclined to accept the theory as put forth before this court, to quash the proceedings. In my considered view, the same is available by way of defence to the accused to be agitated before the trial court and the truthfulness or otherwise of such theory cannot be gone into by this court in this quash petition, which is summary in nature. 8. The learned Counsel for the Respondent furnished copy of the Criminal Original Petitions filed by the Respondent as well as the Petitioner herein regarding the similar private complaints filed by the Respondent in which the Criminal Original Petition filed by the Petitioner herein was dismissed. The Criminal Original Petition filed by the Respondent was allowed directing the trial Court to dispose of the case within a reasonable period and also directing the trial Court to cancel the bond executed by the Accused. 9. On consideration of the rival submissions and on perusal of the reported rulings and also unreported decisions of this High Court placed by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, it is found that the Petitioner herein had appeared befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
