Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court could quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 at the summoning stage on the ground that the underlying debt was time barred.
Analysis: The issue whether a cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, including whether such debt was barred by limitation, depends upon the evidence led by the parties. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate once issuance and dishonour of the cheque are shown, and the question whether the debt was time barred cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 at the threshold. Such a determination is a mixed question of law and fact and must be left for trial.
Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in quashing the complaint on the ground of limitation at the summoning stage.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the quashing order was set aside, and the complaint proceedings were restored to the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi: A plea that the cheque related to a time-barred debt is ordinarily a matter for trial and cannot, by itself, justify quashing of Section 138 proceedings in exercise of inherent jurisdiction at the threshold.