2026 (6) TMI 893

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent instituted Annexure-A complaint before the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, on 10.11.2004, alleging that a cheque for Rs. 8,00,000/- issued by the petitioner got dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in her bank account. Though a statutory demand lawyer notice was issued, the petitioner failed to discharge the liability. Instead, she sent a reply raising untenable contentions. Consequently, the 1st respondent filed the complaint alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("Act" for brevity). 3. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant, the complaint was taken on file as C.C. No.1064 of 2004 by the Court of the Judicial First-Cla....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ice, the marking of documents was not endorsed on the deposition sheet. When the matter was taken up for cross-examination of the complainant on 20.09.2025, the documents were marked in the deposition sheet. On the same day, the certified copies of the inter-party judgment and decree in O.S. No. 220/2005 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Attingal, were marked through an additional chief affidavit filed by the complainant as Exts. P7 and P8. Subsequently, on 23.01.2026, the petitioner filed the application to stay the proceedings on the ground that an appeal against Ext.P8 decree is pending before this Court. The Trial Court dismissed the application by the impugned order. 8. The chronology of events discloses the plight of a complai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and criminal proceedings arising out of the same transaction, the Trial Court dismissed the application. 12. The contention that the stay application was filed because of the marking of documents is demonstrably incorrect. Exts.P1 to P6 had been marked as early as 12.06.2006 without any objection from the petitioner. Having remained silent for two decades, the petitioner cannot turn around and assail the marking of the documents. The contention is legally untenable. 13. Apart from ratio in Vishnu Dutt Sharma's case (supra), the legal position stands conclusively settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including P. Swaroopa Rani v. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu [(2008) 5 SCC 765], D. Purushotama Reddy and Another....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bt or liability. 18. Likewise, in Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2022) 20 SCC 661], the Supreme Court held that when there is a legal presumption under Section 139 of the Act, it would not be judicious to carry out a detailed enquiry on a disputed question of fact at the pre-trial stage to quash the complaint. 19. In view of the allegations contained in the complaint and the above settled legal principles, I do not find any ground to quash the complaint. The present proceeding appears to be filed with a view to protracting the final determination of the complaint. The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is meritless and is accordingly dismissed. 20. Before parting with the case, this Court expresses its con....