9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Anil Jain Vs. Tarun Mathur & Anr. in CC Case No. 44492/2019 be quashed B) Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the instant petition are that the respondent herein had filed a complaint bearing CC No. 44492/2019 against the petitioners before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi (hereinafter "MM") under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter "NI Act"). In the said complaint case, the learned MM issued summons against all the petitioners vide order date 8th April, 2021 and framed notice against the petitioner no. 1 vide order dated 18th April, 2022 and against the petitioner no. 2 vide order dated 9th June, 2022. 3. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid summoning order and framing of notice before the learned ASJ under Section 397 of the CrPC, thereby, invoking the revisional jurisdiction vide case bearing CR No. 627/22. The said revision petition was dismissed by the learned ASJ vide order dated 14th March, 2023. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... failed to appreciate that the summons were issued against them erroneously. 14. Section 138 of the NI Act is a quasi criminal remedy available to a party aggrieved by the dishonor of a cheque, who may initiate such proceedings against the issuer of a cheque. 15. This Court is of the view that summons issued in a complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act may be quashed if it is prima facie apparent from the complaint that the complainant has not presented even an iota of evidence for filing the said complaint which shows occurrence of an offence. 16. In the case of HMT Watches Limited v. M.A. Abida, (2015) 11 SCC 776, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the accused (Respondent 1) challenged the proceedings of criminal complaint cases before the High Court, taking factual defences. Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion, the High Court should not have expressed its view on the disputed question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de out as the same would amount to error of law. 19. Inherent powers of High Court cannot be taken for granted by the party against whom summons under Section 138 of the NI Act have been issued and the litigants must abhor filing of petitions in a routine manner. 20. The petitioner in the instant case has asserted that the learned ASJ failed to appreciate that the learned Trial Court issued summons without going through the records of the case as per which the cheques in question were of different banks and issued by different persons/signatories as well as the same pertain to different transactions. 21. Upon perusal of the records of the present case, it is made out that after considering the contents made in the petition as well as the documents alongwith the complaint, and the evidences which have been filed alongwith the affidavit, the learned Magistrate has passed a detailed and reasoned order while issuing the summons. 22. A revision petition was filed challenging the order dated 8th April, 2021 in case CC No. 4449/2019, passed by the learned Trial Court. In this order, the learned Trial Court summoned the petitioners herein for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Trial Court to summon the petitioners under Section 138 of the NI Act, based on the settled principles of law. According to these principles, summons can be issued when, prima facie, a case is made out through the complaint, supporting documents, and evidence filed with the affidavit. Here, the learned Trial Court carefully reviewed these materials, issuing a reasoned summoning order and framed notice only after considering the details provided. This approach aligns with established legal practice, underscoring that a Court should ensure there is enough preliminary evidence to proceed without delving deeply into disputed factual questions at the summoning stage. 31. Moreover, it is well established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Courts should avoid expressing views on disputed factual questions to conclude whether an offence has been made out when proceedings under the NI Act are challenged in a higher Court, such as the High Court, under Section 482 CrPC. 32. Engaging with these questions at this stage would be evidently a premature adjudication of factual issues meant for trial. Therefore, the learned ASJ's reasoning that both cheques were issued as part of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
