Petition to quash summoning order under Section 138 NI Act dismissed; issues to be addressed at trial.

The HC dismissed the petition to quash the summoning order and complaints under Section 138 of the NI Act, concerning dishonoured cheques issued in partial discharge of a loan liability. The court held that the issues of misuse of security cheques and the existence of a legally enforceable debt are matters for trial. It also ruled that the amalgamation of Capital First Ltd. into IDFC First Bank Ltd. did not affect the maintainability of the complaint. The petitioners were allowed to raise their defenses during the trial, and the petition was disposed of.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of summoning order and complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Allegation of misuse of security cheques.
3. Legally enforceable debt or liability.
4. Amalgamation and its impact on the maintainability of the complaint.

Summary:

Issue 1: Quashing of Summoning Order and Complaints under Section 138 of NI Act
The petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 20.08.2019 and the related complaints filed under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complaints were based on the dishonour of two cheques issued by the petitioners in partial discharge of a loan liability. The court emphasized that the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act, as clarified by the Supreme Court in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel, were prima facie satisfied, including the issuance of cheques for a legally enforceable debt and their subsequent dishonour due to insufficient funds.

Issue 2: Allegation of Misuse of Security Cheques
The petitioners contended that the cheques in question were issued as security cheques and were misused by the complainant. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Sunil Todi v. State of Gujarat, stating that whether cheques were given as security or otherwise is a matter of defence to be adjudicated at the trial stage. The court cannot resolve such disputed questions of fact in a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Issue 3: Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability
The petitioners argued that there was no legally enforceable debt or liability at the time the cheques were drawn. The court noted that the complainant had averred that the cheques were issued in partial discharge of a loan liability, which was not disputed by the petitioners. The court emphasized that the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability is a matter to be determined at trial, as per the Supreme Court's observations in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi).

Issue 4: Amalgamation and its Impact on the Maintainability of the Complaint
The petitioners argued that the cheques were payable to Capital First Ltd. and not to the complainant, IDFC First Bank Ltd., and hence the complaint was not maintainable. The court referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. M/s Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd., explaining that upon amalgamation, all properties, rights, liabilities, and duties of the amalgamating company vest in the transferee company. The complainant had shown that Capital First Ltd. had amalgamated into IDFC First Bank Ltd., transferring all liabilities, including the loan availed by the petitioners.

Conclusion:
The court found no ground to quash the summoning order dated 20.08.2019 and the related complaints. The petitioners were granted the liberty to raise all issues during the trial, which would be adjudicated based on the evidence presented. The petition was disposed of accordingly, and the judgment was ordered to be uploaded on the website forthwith.

---