Petition dismissed seeking quashing of dishonoured cheque proceedings under Section 138 NI Act

Delhi HC dismissed petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act for dishonoured cheque. Court held that once cheque is issued, it must be honoured, and if dishonoured, drawer gets opportunity to pay through legal notice before facing criminal trial. HC refused to usurp Metropolitan Magistrate's powers and examine defence at preliminary stage. Court emphasized that Sections 143 and 145 NI Act provide expedited trial procedure allowing accused to present defence through affidavits and cross-examination. No exceptional circumstances warranted invoking Section 482 CrPC jurisdiction for quashing proceedings at this stage.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of proceedings/complaint/order of Cognizance/Order of summoning dated 16.03.2023 against the petitioners.
2. Legal validity of the order of cognizance against the petitioners dated 16.03.2023.

For the first issue, the petitioners sought to quash the proceedings based on a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons requiring the petitioners to attend court. The petitioners argued that the order of cognizance was improper due to non-compliance with statutory provisions. However, the court found that all statutory requirements had been met, including the presentation of the cheque within its validity period, subsequent dishonor, and issuance of a legal notice. The High Court emphasized that the accused must raise defenses before the Metropolitan Magistrate and that the High Court cannot usurp the Magistrate's powers. The offense under Section 138 is technical, and defenses must be proven by the accused, with evidence already given by the complainant considered proof unless the accused requests to recall witnesses for cross-examination.

Regarding the legal validity of the order of cognizance, the court noted that partners of a partnership firm can be vicariously liable for the firm's acts. The court found prima facie evidence to proceed against the accused based on compliance with statutory requirements. The High Court concluded that no grounds existed to quash the proceedings, and the Trial Court should address the petitioners' contentions and defense in accordance with the law. The prayers to quash the proceedings were deemed untenable, leading to the dismissal of the petition and pending application. The High Court did not find material warranting the invocation of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, as the defense raised required evidence that could only be proven in a court of law. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures under the Cr.PC and the NI Act to expedite trial in such cases, allowing accused parties to enter their defense evidence and cross-examine witnesses effectively.

---