TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions for an extended period. The Complainant and Mr. Prakhar Sahani granted a personal loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- to Mr. Sarvesh Puri, Accused No. 1 at the rate of 4% per month, on 23.08.2017, to be repaid by August 2018. 3. Due to an alleged lack of security, the Complainant and Mr. Prakhar Sahani deducted one year's advance interest amount and an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/- was disbursed to the Accused. 4. According to the Complainant, the Accused made payments in a fragmented and disorganized manner, towards the interest between August, 2017 till February, 2019. Because of this continued default, the outstanding amounts including both the principal amount and accrued interest, was in excess of Rs. 10,00,000/-. 5. To discharge a part of the legally enforceable debt, the Accused No. 1/Mr. Sarvesh Puri, issued a cheque bearing No. 059447 drawn on Union Bank for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant/Mr. Rishab Kumar. The cheque was presented for encashment on 30.04.2021, but it was returned unpaid on 03.05.2021 with the endorsement "Kindly Contact Drawer Drawee Bank". 6. A Legal Demand Notice on 30.12.2021 was issued at both the addresses of the Accused, despite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence of debt and the nature of the cheque being given as a security are triable issues that cannot be adjudicated in a quashing Petition. Submissions Heard and Record Perused. 15. The High Court's power under Section 528 BNSS (Section 482 CrPC) to quash proceedings is to be exercised sparingly, primarily to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. However, where the continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of Court, the Court is duty-bound to interfere. A. Whether the Complaint has been filed in accordance with S.138 NI Act: i) Whether "Legal Notice" was given within Time: 16. The first challenge to the maintainability of the Complaint is that the Legal Notice was not served within 30 days of receipt of information about the dishonor of the cheque. Section 138(b) of the NI Act mandates that the payee must make a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, "within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid". 17. The Return Memo is dated 03.05.2021 while the Legal Notice was issued....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest. The Complainant further relies on the statutory presumption that the mere issuance of the cheque acts as conclusive proof of the acknowledgement of liability. 24. First and foremost, there is no cogent basis disclosed by the petitioner, to assert that it was a security cheque given to secure the Loan amount. Pertinently, the precise case is that since there was no security available, out of the total loan of Rs. Rs. 5,00,000/- along with interest, only an amount of Rs. 2,60,000/-, was disbursed. As per the Petitioner, the loan amount was paid between August, 2017 till February, 2019 and there was a misunderstanding about the small balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- and also that initial Security Cheque was misplaced. If only a small amount remained to be paid at the time of issuance of Cheque on, there was no question of giving the Cheque for the entire loan amount. There is no basis to claim it was a security Cheque and not given towards existing Legal Liability. 25. Moreover, even if it is accepted that the cheque was given as security for a loan, it crystallizes into a legally enforceable debt on a subsequent date; the cheque, even if originally a "security" one, as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 10.01.2022 in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation (Supra), directed that in cases where the limitation expired during the period between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. 31. Thus, the extended limitation began on 01.03.2022, and 90 days thereafter, was 29.05.2022, till when the Complaint could have been filed. 32. The Case Details from the e-Courts services placed on record by the Petitioner reflects that the Complaint was filed on 24.06.2022. The Index of the Complaint in the TCR is dated ".05.2022" which indicates that it also did not give the date which was left blank. The physical filing date recorded by the registry, is 24.06.2022, which is 26 days beyond the extended limitation period which expired on 29.05.2022. 33. Proviso to Section 142(b) NI Act allows the court to take cognizance of a Complaint after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the court that he had "sufficient cause" for not filing the Complaint within the prescribed period. A perusal of the TCR reveals that the Complainant did not file any App....