2018 (7) TMI 1540

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... after preliminary inquiry, by order dated 09.02.2015. The accusations relate to non-payment of the value of the cheque no.484425 for Rs. 20,00,000/- statedly drawn by the petitioner against his account with ICICI Bank Ltd., Delhi in favour of the complainant which, upon presentation, was returned unpaid by the bank. The petitioner failed to make any payment inspite of service of notice of demand. 2. The petitioner invokes the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to pray for quashing of the said criminal complaint case on the ground it is an abuse of the process of the court. 3. The background facts leading to the filing of the complaint case are set out in the complaint by the second re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....branch but the aforesaid cheque has been returned unpaid with endorsement payment stopped by drawer by banker and the same has been intimated to complainant by their banker that is ICICI Bank, Bopal Branch, Ahmedabad on 11.08.2013. A copy of cheque and return memo are annexed herewith a separate list." 4. It is the argument of the petitioner that the complainant had filled in the date in the cheque which was admittedly issued as "undated" and therefore, it is a case of material alteration of the negotiable instrument, rendering it invalid. Reliance is placed on Jayantilal Goel Vs. Zubeda Khanum, AIR 1986 AP 120, Ramakannan vs. Chettiar & Co., (2007) 1 LW (Cri) 527 and BPDL Investment Vs. Maple Leaf Trading, 129 (2006) DLT 94. It is also ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount; provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder. 7. In T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar, (2008) 5 SCC 633, in the context of similar prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881, the Supreme Court observed that by rea....