2022 (2) TMI 353 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses petition to quash charge sheet under Section 138, directs trial to proceed.

G.S. Karthikeyan Versus D.I. Nathan

The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the charge sheet under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, directing the trial court to ... Dishonor of Cheque - legally enforceable debt or not - cheque issued towards the legal fees - allegation of the complaint clearly shows that one cheque was issued towards L.I.C. Policy and the other is for legal fees - HELD THAT:- It is pleaded in the complaint that one of the cheques was issued towards the L.I.C. Policy commission and the another one is for legal fees. Therefore, whether there is a legally enforceable debt or not, has to be seen only at the time of trial. Though the legal notice was replied raising disputed question of facts, the same have to be seen only at the time of evidence. The onus is only on drawer of the cheque to dislodge the legal presumption. Though, there may not be any direct evidence to dislodge the presumption, even the circumstances can be brought on record by the drawer to prove the case before the trial Court. In such view of the matter, the disputed facts cannot be gone into at this stage while deciding the petition filed under Section 482 Crl.P.C. Petition dismissed. Issues:1. Quashing of charge sheet under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Dispute regarding the issuance and dishonor of two cheques.3. Legal enforceability of debt for legal fees.4. Interpretation of judgments cited by both parties.5. Maintenance of complaint despite account closure in 2002.6. Decision on disputed facts at the trial stage.7. Application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Issue 1: Quashing of charge sheet under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActThe petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet in C.C. No. 732 of 2017 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that the cheques issued were misused by the respondent. The petitioner contended that the accounts were closed in 2002, and the respondent, being a lawyer, misused the cheques. The respondent opposed the quashing, arguing that the allegations in the complaint regarding the purpose of the cheques must be decided at trial and cannot be determined at this stage.Issue 2: Dispute regarding the issuance and dishonor of two chequesThe complaint alleged that two cheques were issued by the accused, one for L.I.C. Policies and the other for legal fees, both of which were dishonored by the bank. The petitioner denied issuing the cheques and claimed misuse by the respondent. The respondent argued that the purpose of the cheques was clearly stated in the legal notice and opposed the quashing of the charge sheet.Issue 3: Legal enforceability of debt for legal feesThe petitioner contended that the cheque issued for legal fees was not legally enforceable debt. However, the respondent argued that the legal fees were part of the transaction and should be determined during trial, citing relevant legal precedents.Issue 4: Interpretation of judgments cited by both partiesThe petitioner relied on various judgments to support the argument that the complaint should be quashed due to account closure and misuse of cheques. In contrast, the respondent emphasized that the disputed facts should be addressed during trial, as per the legal principles established in the cited judgments.Issue 5: Maintenance of complaint despite account closure in 2002The petitioner claimed that since the accounts were closed in 2002, the complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable. However, the court referred to legal precedents stating that mere dishonor due to closed accounts does not absolve liability, and the issue should be determined during trial.Issue 6: Decision on disputed facts at the trial stageThe court emphasized that disputed facts should be addressed during trial, and the burden of proof lies with the drawer of the cheques to dislodge the legal presumption. The court highlighted that circumstances and evidence should be presented before the trial court to prove the case, and disputed questions of fact should be resolved during the trial proceedings.Issue 7: Application of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure CodeIn the final decision, the court dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the trial court to expedite the trial and dispose of the case on its merits. The accused was instructed to appear before the trial court, file a bail application, and release on bail upon compliance. Failure to comply could result in further legal action under the Indian Penal Code.This detailed analysis covers the key issues addressed in the judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal arguments, interpretations of relevant laws, and the court's decision in the case.