Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether process issued for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be quashed on the ground that the cheque was a blank cheque allegedly misused for an amount higher than the amount intended to be paid and that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process.
Analysis: A signed blank or incomplete cheque carries a prima facie authority to the holder to fill in the instrument, but the statutory protection in Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 limits recovery by a person other than a holder in due course to the amount intended by the drawer. The Court treated the surrounding correspondence and the admitted background of account settlement as sufficient, at the stage of process, to indicate that the cheque may have been issued on trust for a specific understanding and that the amount filled in could exceed the amount intended. In those circumstances, the continuation of the criminal complaint was viewed as potentially oppressive, and the availability of civil remedies did not preclude intervention where the criminal process appeared to be used as a pressure tactic.
Conclusion: The process issued in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was quashed and set aside, in favour of the petitioner.