TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court upholds maintainability of complaint under Section 138 NI Act, dismisses petitions under Section 482 Code.</h1> <h3>M/s. Vicon Developers Pvt. Ltd., Varun Jain, S/o Shri Vimal Jain, Versus Khandwa Oils Private Limited, Sanjay Shri Shrimal</h3> M/s. Vicon Developers Pvt. Ltd., Varun Jain, S/o Shri Vimal Jain, Versus Khandwa Oils Private Limited, Sanjay Shri Shrimal - TMI Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Application for discharge under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.3. Application for production of documents under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act:The respondents filed a complaint against the petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, supported by an affidavit. The complaint stated that the petitioners issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 1,07,99,719/- towards their outstanding liability, which was dishonoured upon presentation. Subsequently, a legal notice demanding payment was sent, which was not responded to, leading to the filing of the complaint. The Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and issued summons on 8-1-2015. The complaint was found to be maintainable as it met the criteria under Section 138 of the NI Act.2. Application for Discharge under Section 203 of the Code:The petitioners filed an application under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking dismissal of the complaint on the grounds of non-maintainability. They also objected based on Section 118(a) of the NI Act read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, arguing that the complainants had not disclosed their complete identity. The Magistrate rejected the application, stating that in a summon trial, there is no provision for the discharge of accused persons. The revisional court concurred with this finding. The High Court upheld this view, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal, which held that the remedy for challenging the issuance of process lies in a petition under Section 482 of the Code, not in discharge.3. Application for Production of Documents under Section 91 of the Code:The petitioners sought the production of documents related to the company Khandwa Oils. The Magistrate rejected this application, stating that the complaint was at an initial stage, and the petitioners could lead evidence at the defense stage. The High Court upheld this decision, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, which clarified that Section 91 of the Code does not confer the right on the accused to seek the production of documents to prove their defense at the initial stage of framing the charge. The necessity and desirability of such documents are to be considered at the appropriate stage of the trial.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petitions under Section 482 of the Code, affirming that:- The complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was maintainable.- There is no provision for discharge in summon trials under Chapter XX of the Code.- The application for production of documents was rightly rejected as premature.The court emphasized that the accused must face the trial, and any challenge to the issuance of summons should be addressed through a petition under Section 482 of the Code. The decisions of the trial and revisional courts were upheld, and the petitions were dismissed in limine.
TaxTMI 