TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court] dated 20.06.2019 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3744 of 2015 whereby, while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [The Code], High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Complaint Case No. 1563(C) of 2013. 3. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the appellant lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [N.I. Act] against the first respondent by alleging, inter alia, that the first respondent took delivery of goods from the complainant and in lieu thereof issued cheque, dated 04.03.2013, of Rs. 20,00,000. On 04.03.2013 itself, the complainant presented the said cheque with its banker for collection. However, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risdiction under Section 482 of the Code by holding an enquiry as to whether the cheque in question was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability inasmuch as under Section 139 of the N.I. Act a presumption is raised, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Though this presumption is rebuttable, such presumption can only be rebutted in trial and therefore, the complaint which encapsulates all the essential ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act could not have been quashed at the threshold by examining whether the cheque concerned was re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, or where quashing of the proceedings is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 12. In the instant case, the complaint clearly spells out the necessary ingredients for commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is also alleged in the complaint that the cheque was issued in the discharge of liability qua goods supplied by the complainant. The cheque was brought on record along with the dishonor memo of the bank concerned which indicated that it was returned unpaid for insufficient funds in the drawer's account. The complaint also indicated that complainant had served notice of demand within the specified period and despite service of notice of demand, no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncludes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. It was observed that such a presumption is rebuttable, and the accused must raise its defense in the trial. 16. In Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2020) 3 SCC 794], it was held that the High Court should not quash the criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act by going into disputed questions of fact regarding the cheque in question being issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Moreso, when Section 139 of the N.I. Act raises a statutory presumption as regards the cheque being issued for discharge of debt or liability. 17. In Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2022) 20 SCC 661], this Court held that when there is a legal pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 19. Situated thus, to non-suit the complainant, at the stage of the summoning order, when the factual controversy is yet to be canvassed and considered by the trial court will not in our opinion be judicious. Based upon a prima facie impression, an element of criminality cannot entirely be ruled out here subject to the determination by the trial court. Therefore, when the proceedings are at a nascent stage, scuttling of the criminal process is not merited." 18. Having regard to the aforesaid decisions of this Court as also the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act, we are of the considered view that the High Court committed an error by conducting a roving enquiry, at the pre-trial stage, as regards the cheque being issued fo....