2019 (12) TMI 4 - HC - Indian Laws

High Court quashes magistrate's order on dishonored cheque for friendly loan, emphasizes procedural clarity.

Rahul Gupta Versus State & Anr.

The High Court quashed the order and judgment passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate regarding a dishonored cheque for a friendly loan. Due to confusion ... Dishonor of Cheque - section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - territorial Jurisdiction - transfer of the case to another state - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the plaintiff/appellant had filed his evidence by way of, affidavit and in the affidavit also he had mentioned about the pendency of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent No.2/defendant. The aforesaid suit was last listed on 11.04.2017 for evidence of the plaintiff and on which date the plaintiff was cross examined by the counsel for the defendant/respondent No.2 in part. Fact remains that when the Gurugram Court transferred the matter vide order dated 29.10.2015, it was to be listed before the District Court, Delhi on 11.01.2016, however, it was not listed on that day. Thereafter, there was no information further to the appellant, as to when and where the matter was to be posted - in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case and the fact that the appellant was running from pillar to post as complaint was initially filed at Delhi, thereafter transferred to Gurugram and then to Delhi again. The Trial Court is directed to restore the Complaint - parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 02.12.2019 - Petition allowed. Issues:1. Quashing of impugned order and judgment dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate2. Dishonored cheque issued by respondent No. 2 for a friendly loan3. Complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the appellant4. Amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding jurisdiction of filing complaints5. Transfer of the complaint to the competent Court6. Lack of information regarding the status of the complaint7. Filing of a summary suit for recovery of the loan amount8. Dismissal of the complaint for not being prosecutedAnalysis:1. The appellant sought directions to quash the order and judgment dated 23.08.2016 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The case involved a dishonored cheque issued by respondent No. 2 for a friendly loan of Rs. 13,50,000. The appellant filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was initially returned due to jurisdiction issues and later transferred to the District Court in Delhi.2. An amendment in the Negotiable Instruments Act dictated that complaints under section 138 should be filed where the branch of the bank of the payee is located. The appellant informed the Magistrate about this change, leading to the transfer of the case to the competent Court in Delhi. However, there was a lack of information regarding the status of the transferred complaint, causing confusion and delays in the proceedings.3. The appellant also filed a summary suit for the recovery of the loan amount, which was at the stage of defendants' evidence. During the proceedings, it was revealed that the original complaint under section 138 had been dismissed on 23.08.2016 without the appellant's knowledge, leading to further complications in the legal process.4. Due to the appellant's efforts to track the status of the complaint and the confusion surrounding its transfer between different Courts, the High Court set aside the order dated 23.08.2016 and directed the Trial Court to restore the Complaint Case to its original number. The parties were instructed to appear before the concerned Court on a specified date, with a warning of legal consequences if the respondent failed to appear.5. The Court acknowledged the appellant's challenges in navigating the legal system due to the multiple transfers of the complaint and lack of communication regarding hearing dates. In light of these circumstances, the petition was allowed, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and clarity in legal proceedings.