TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition dismissed for quashing summoning order in dishonoured cheque case under Section 138 NI Act</h1> <h3>Siddharth Taneja (Sole Proprietor) M/s. Periyar Hybrid Seeds Co. Versus State & Anr.</h3> Delhi HC dismissed petition seeking quashing of summoning order in dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 NI Act. Petitioner admitted issuing two ... Dishonour of Cheque - security cheques - seeking quashing of the Summoning Order - HELD THAT:- From the bare perusal of the Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 and the submissions made by the petitioner in the present petition, it is evident that admittedly the aforementioned two cheques were given by the petitioner, which on presentation got dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. It is the defence of the petitioner that the said two cheques were given as a security cheques which were to be encashed only if the pledged goods were not delivered. However, the pledged goods i.e., Sarso Seeds got stolen and the FIR bearing No. 710/2018 under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is further the defence of the petitioner that the ledger accounts on which the respondent No. 2-complainant has relied, are not correct. It is quite evident from the submissions made that there is no denial to the issuance of the cheques and its subsequent dishonour on the ground of insufficiency of funds - All the contentions raised by way of present petition are, in fact, the defence of the petitioner which are required to be proved during the trial. There is no infirmity in the impugned Summoning Order dated 29.11.2018 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate - Petition dismissed. Issues:Quashing of Summoning Order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. regarding a Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 based on dishonored cheques and disputed business dealings involving Pledge Agreements and stolen goods.Analysis:The petitioner sought to quash the Summoning Order dated 29.11.2018, related to a Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner, a proprietor of a seed trading firm, was accused of dishonoring two cheques amounting to Rs. 57,15,000 issued to the complainant, who was a seed supplier. The petitioner claimed that the cheques were security cheques linked to Pledge Agreements for Sarso Seeds. The petitioner alleged that the complainant misused the cheques and removed pledged goods illegally. The petitioner also highlighted discrepancies in ledger accounts and accused the complainant of not fulfilling their contractual obligations. The petitioner contended that the Summoning Order was untenable due to the disputed transactions and the stolen goods.The petitioner's defense revolved around the contention that the cheques were security cheques to be encashed only if the pledged goods were not returned. However, the goods were allegedly stolen, leading to the dishonor of the cheques. The petitioner emphasized discrepancies in ledger accounts and accused the complainant of presenting incomplete facts in the Complaint under Section 138 of NI Act, resulting in the Summoning Order. The petitioner's arguments were considered as defenses that needed to be proven during the trial, indicating that the issues raised required further examination and evidence presentation.The court found that there was no denial of issuing the cheques or their subsequent dishonor due to insufficient funds. The court concluded that the petitioner's contentions were defenses to be established during the trial proceedings. Ultimately, the court upheld the Summoning Order dated 29.11.2018, dismissing the petitioner's plea to quash the order. The decision highlighted that the issues raised by the petitioner needed to be addressed through the trial process, indicating that the matter required a detailed examination of evidence and legal arguments.Therefore, the court's judgment upheld the Summoning Order, emphasizing the need for a trial to address the disputed claims and defenses presented by the petitioner regarding the dishonored cheques, disputed business dealings, and the alleged theft of pledged goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
