2018 (10) TMI 1975

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the complainant bank and accused. 3. It is the case of the complainant-bank that the first accused was granted credit facility on 26.12.2014 and a letter of credit for 90 days was issued in favour of the accused to clear the consignment of coal, in which business the accused were into. In the terms of the letter of credit, the accused was required to pay a total sum of Rs.5,03,21,250/- only, which the accused did not pay within 90 days. Towards the said due, the accused gave a cheque for Rs.5,03,21,250/- dated 26.03.2015. The complainant-bank presented the cheque and the same was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds on 18.06.2015. Thereafter, the complainant issued a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urt in Karekar Finance Pvt. Ltd., an.. Vs. Shri M.N.Bashyam & another 2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3073. 6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions. 7. As regards the first contention that the cheque was issued only as a security, this Court is of the view that the same is a disputed question of fact and cannot be decided in a quash application. Similarly, whether the cheque amount exceeds the debt amount is also a disputed question of fact and can be decided only during trial. In Angu Parameswari Textiles case (cited supra), this Court has specifically noted as follows: "3.The original cheque amount is for Rs.4,68,581/-. Subsequently, the complainant has admitted that he received a demand draft of Rs.2,00,000/- tow....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t is seen that the same has been filed before the ROC only on 08.04.2016. The impugned cheque in this case is dated 28.03.2015. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be quashed as against G.R.Surana, A3 at the threshold. In the result, this petition is closed with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points before the Trial Court during the course of trial. Whatever is stated here is only for deciding this quash application and grounds are still open to the accused to be urged before the Trial Court. 11.Mr.S.J.Jagadev submitted that the Court may dispense with the presence of G.R.Surana (the 3 rd petitioner) before the Trial Court. 12.Accepting the submission, G.R.Surana/3 rd petitioner is directed to appear before the Trial Court ....