Court upholds criminal complaint in cheque bounce case, emphasizes trial process validity.

The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the summoning order. It held that the absence of a bank seal on the cheque return memo did not render it invalid, emphasizing that any irregularities could be addressed during the trial. The court found that the trial court had appropriately applied judicial mind in issuing the summoning order based on prima facie grounds, rejecting the petitioner's arguments as lacking merit. The decision upheld the trial court's discretion and directed expedited trial proceedings.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Admissibility and validity of the cheque return memo.
3. Application of judicial mind by the trial court in issuing the summoning order.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner sought to quash the criminal complaint titled "Amrit Pal Singh Bedi V International Trenching Pvt. Ltd. & Ors." and the summoning order dated 29.08.2019. The complaint was filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging that the petitioner and other accused failed to make a timely payment of Rs. 47,53,519/- to the respondent. The trial court took cognizance of the offence and issued summons against the accused nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner argued that the complaint and the summoning order were not maintainable due to the absence of an original cheque return memo with a bank seal, making the document inadmissible.

2. Admissibility and Validity of the Cheque Return Memo:
The petitioner contended that the cheque return memo submitted was not admissible as it lacked the bank's official seal and was merely an internal document. The court examined Section 146 of the NI Act, which presumes the fact of dishonour unless disproved. It noted that neither Section 138 nor Section 146 prescribes a specific form for the cheque return memo. The court held that the absence of a bank seal does not render the memo invalid or illegal. The cheque return memo is a mere information document and does not need to be covered under Section 4 of the Bankers Book (Evidence) Act, 1891. Any irregularities in the memo can be addressed during the trial.

3. Application of Judicial Mind by the Trial Court in Issuing the Summoning Order:
The petitioner argued that the trial court failed to scrutinize the material on record and applied a mechanical mind in issuing the summoning order. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in "A. C. Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr." which allows the Magistrate to issue process based on the complaint, supporting documents, and the complainant's affidavit. The trial court found prima facie sufficient grounds for proceeding against accused nos. 1 to 3, relying on the verification in the form of an affidavit. The court concluded that there was no infirmity or illegality in the trial court's order, and the petitioner's grounds lacked factual and legal basis.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. It directed the trial court to expedite the trial of the complaint and sent a copy of the order for information and compliance. The decision emphasizes the sufficiency of a cheque return memo without a bank seal and upholds the trial court's discretion in issuing summons based on the complainant's affidavit and supporting documents.

---