Just a moment...
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 the cheque alleged to have been issued as security or as a blank cheque, and the consequent liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be examined in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: The dispute whether the cheque was issued towards a debt or liability, or only as security, turned on contested facts requiring evidence. Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not meant for deciding such factual controversies or for testing the defence at the threshold when the complaint discloses an offence. The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 also operates against the drawer, and the defence that the cheque was not issued towards liability remains a matter to be proved in trial. The issue of a signed blank cheque does not by itself defeat the complaint at the quashing stage.
Conclusion: The challenge to the summoning order was rejected and the petitioner's defence was held to be triable in evidence, not in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the defence to a cheque dishonour complaint depends on disputed facts such as whether the cheque was only a security cheque or a blank cheque, quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is impermissible and the matter must proceed to trial.