Court dismisses petition to quash proceedings under Section 138, emphasizes expeditious resolution

The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the need for expeditious resolution. It held that the Trial Court's decision to try the case as a summons case was not premature, despite non-compliance with procedural mandates. The court rejected arguments of prejudice due to lack of prior hearing, stating that apprehension of a higher sentence did not constitute prejudice. The petition was deemed meritless, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed promptly with the main case.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Premature order by Trial Court to conduct the case as a summons case.
3. Non-compliance with the mandate of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
4. Delay in filing the petition and its implications.
5. Applicability of the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus".
6. Prejudice caused by not affording an opportunity of hearing before treating the case as a summons case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in Criminal Complaint No.4280 dated 23.08.2012 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint was filed by the respondent alleging that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 1,29,74,692, which was dishonored due to "funds insufficient" and "drawers signature differ". The petitioner was summoned to face trial, and the Trial Court decided to try the case as a summons case due to the substantial amount involved.

2. Premature order by Trial Court to conduct the case as a summons case:
The petitioner argued that the Trial Court's order to try the case as a summons case was premature and issued before the commencement of the trial. The petitioner relied on the judgment in J.V. Baharuni & Another Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr, which states that the decision to try the case as a summons case should be made during the course of the trial, not before it begins.

3. Non-compliance with the mandate of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The petitioner contended that the Trial Court's order conflicted with Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates summary trials for offences under the Act. The petitioner argued that the Trial Court failed to follow the procedure of hearing the parties before deciding to try the case as a summons case, as required by the second proviso to Section 143(1).

4. Delay in filing the petition and its implications:
The respondent opposed the petition, highlighting that it was filed after a delay of two and a half years from the Trial Court's order. The respondent noted that the trial had progressed significantly, with the complainant's evidence closed in November 2014 and the petitioner's statement under Section 313 CrPC recorded in December 2015. The delay in filing the petition was deemed inexcusable and suggested an abuse of the process of law.

5. Applicability of the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus":
The petitioner invoked the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus," arguing that if the foundation of the Trial Court's order was removed, the entire structure of the proceedings would collapse. However, the court found this maxim inapplicable, as the initial action (the order to try the case as a summons case) was not in conflict with the law, and non-compliance with the directive to hear the parties did not vitiate the proceedings.

6. Prejudice caused by not affording an opportunity of hearing before treating the case as a summons case:
The petitioner claimed prejudice due to the lack of an opportunity to be heard before the case was treated as a summons case, potentially leading to a sentence exceeding one year. However, the court held that mere apprehension of a higher sentence did not constitute prejudice. The discretion to impose a higher sentence would be exercised by the judicial mind after following due process.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The court emphasized that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be exercised sparingly and noted the advanced stage of the trial, with the statement under Section 313 CrPC already recorded. The court directed the Trial Court to ensure an expeditious decision in the main case.

---