Court Upholds Summoning Order & Dismissal of Revision: Section 138 N.I. Act

The court upheld the summoning order and dismissal of the criminal revision, finding a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The applicant's denial of loan and cheque issuance was insufficient to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt. Allegations of theft and forgery of the cheque were dismissed due to inconsistencies and delays in reporting. The court emphasized the rebuttable nature of statutory presumptions under the N.I. Act. The Magistrate's application of judicial mind was deemed appropriate, and the claim of abuse of court process was rejected. The court found no alignment with cited case laws and upheld the lower courts' decisions, emphasizing trial examination for raised issues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Summoning Order Validity
2. Legality of Loan and Cheque Issuance
3. Alleged Theft and Forgery of Cheque
4. Presumptions under Negotiable Instruments Act
5. Judicial Mind Application by Magistrate
6. Abuse of Process of Court
7. Applicability of Case Laws

Detailed Analysis:

1. Summoning Order Validity:
The applicant challenged the summoning order dated May 7, 2019, issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, and the subsequent dismissal of the criminal revision by the Sessions Judge, Jalaun, on October 24, 2019. The court found no illegality or infirmity in these orders, stating that the trial court had examined relevant documents and found a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The revisional court also upheld this decision, noting that the issues raised by the applicant, such as the genuineness of the cheque and signatures, could be examined during the trial.

2. Legality of Loan and Cheque Issuance:
The applicant claimed that the allegations of taking a loan of Rs. 1,90,000 for purchasing a tractor and installing a tube-well were false, arguing that he was living in New Delhi and driving an E-Rickshaw at the time. He also denied issuing the cheque in question. The court noted that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt unless proven otherwise. The applicant's claims were deemed insufficient to rebut this presumption at the pre-trial stage.

3. Alleged Theft and Forgery of Cheque:
The applicant alleged that his cheque book was stolen by the complainant's sons, who forged his signature. He claimed to have informed the bank about the missing cheques and stopped payment on February 28, 2019, and later filed a complaint. The court found these claims unconvincing, noting inconsistencies and delays in reporting the theft and forgery. The court emphasized that the bank returned the cheque due to insufficient funds, not mismatched signatures, undermining the applicant's forgery claim.

4. Presumptions under Negotiable Instruments Act:
Sections 118, 138, and 139 of the N.I. Act were discussed, highlighting the statutory presumptions that favor the complainant. The court reiterated that these presumptions are rebuttable, but the burden of proof lies on the accused to show the non-existence of consideration or debt. The applicant's arguments and evidence were found insufficient to rebut these presumptions at this stage.

5. Judicial Mind Application by Magistrate:
The applicant argued that the Magistrate acted mechanically without applying judicial mind. The court rejected this, noting that the Magistrate had considered the original cheque, return memo, bank receipt, notice, and other relevant documents before issuing the summoning order. The revisional court also reviewed these materials and found no error in the Magistrate's decision.

6. Abuse of Process of Court:
The applicant claimed that the criminal proceedings were malicious and an abuse of the court's process. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the applicant's remedy of revision had already been exhausted, and the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was essentially a second revision, which is prohibited. The court emphasized that it cannot re-appreciate the same material already considered by the lower courts.

7. Applicability of Case Laws:
The applicant relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Raj Kumar Khurana vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. The court distinguished these cases based on their facts, noting that the applicant's situation did not align with the circumstances in those precedents. The court found that neither fraud nor forgery by the complainant was established, and the statutory presumptions under the N.I. Act remained unrebutted.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application, finding no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the lower courts. The applicant's claims of theft, forgery, and lack of judicial mind application were rejected, and the statutory presumptions under the N.I. Act were upheld. The court emphasized that the issues raised by the applicant could be examined during the trial, not at the pre-trial stage.

---