TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 905X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1956. Respondent No. 2 is also a private limited company registered under the said Act. As per the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 held out in business market that it was owner of property bearing Plot No. E-7, Sector-63, Noida District, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. Petitioner was on a look out for premises to run a service centre and approached Respondent No. 2 and finally, a lease deed was entered into between the parties on 15.11.2019. In terms of the lease deed, Petitioner handed over security cheques towards payment of rent. 8. Petitioner avers that till March, 2020, Petitioner made regular payments of rent but thereafter Respondent No. 2 did not secure a rent permission in favour of the Petitioner, which was its obligation under the lease d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition assailing the said order. 10. Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that as per Section 138 of the NI Act, the liability of the Petitioner would arise only when the cheques issued by the accused are dishonoured either because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheques or exceeds the arrangement. Therefore, it is important for the Petitioner to prove that the cheques in question were not dishonoured for either of the two reasons and the only reason for dishonour was that Petitioner had given instructions to stop the payment on account of ongoing dispute with Respondent No. 2. The learned MM has, therefore, erred in dismissing the appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned APP for the State. 13. After hearing and perusing the impugned order, this Court finds merit in the contention of Respondent No. 2. 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 note ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
