Quashed

Smt. Kavita Mishra v. Purushottam Saraf

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2023ACQA/72/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court quashed the First Class Judicial Magistrate's judgment and order dated 24.10.2009 in an S. 138 NI Act case. The Court held that the appellate court committed legal errors by proceeding on a bare denial and failing to address substantive arguments regarding the rebuttal of statutory presumption under S. 139.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order dated 24.10.2009 by the First Class Judicial Magistrate convicting the respondent under S. 138 NI Act are set aside and the respondent is discharged.

Smt. Kavita Mishra Vs Purushottam Saraf — Cheque Dishonour | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

NRrhlx<+ mPp U;k;ky; fcykliqj

¶4

nks”keqfDr vihy dz 72 of 2010 fu.kZ; lqjf{kr fnukad : 03.08.2023 fu.kZ; ?kksf”kr fnukad : 14.09.2023

¶5

Jherh dfork feJk mez djhc 26 o”kZ] tkSts vfuy feJk] is’kk ?kM+h O;olk; }kjk&VkbZe dkuZj xksycktkj fcykliqj ¼N]x½

¶6

---- vihykFkhZ

¶7

fo:}

¶8

iq:”kksRre ljkQ mez djhcu 60 o”kZ oYn y[ku yky ljkQ] ekfyd@ lapkyd dfiy ,tsalh] MkW0 ykWfMdj fDyfud ds lkeus izhfr gksVy ds cxy cl LVs.M jksM fcykliqj ¼N]x½

¶9

---- vfHk;qDr

¶10

vihykFkhZ ds fy;s % cn:n~nhu [kku] vf/kodrk vfHk;qDr ds fy;s % dksbZ ugha

¶11

ekuuh; U;k;/kh’k egksn;k Jherh jtuh nqcs

¶12

lh , oh vkns’k

¶13

1 vihykFkhZ }kjk ;g vihy U;kf;d n.Mkf/kdkjh izFke Js.kh] fcykliqj ¼N]x½ }kjk ifjokn izdj.k dzaekd 210@2009 esa ikfjr fd, x;s fu.kZ; ,ao vkns’k fnukad 24@10@2009 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr fd;k gS ftlds }kjk fopkj.k U;k;ky; us mRrjoknh @ vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 138 ijdzkE; fyf[kr vf/kfu;e 1881 ds vkjksi ls nks”keqDr fd;k gSA

¶14

2 la{ksi esa izdj.k के rF; bl izdkj gS fd vihykFkhZ @ifjoknh }kjk ,d ifjokn mRrjoknh @ vfHk;qDr ds fo:} bl vk’k; dk izLrqr fd;k था fd ifjoknh rFkk vfHk;qDr fj’rs esa चाचाभतीजीहै।अभिभयुक्तकपि�लएजेंसी

¶15

नामकसंस्थानकासंचालकएवंमालिलकहै।अभिभयुक्तकोअ�नेव्यवसायके

¶16

¶17

लिलएरु�योंकीआवश्यकता�ड़ने�र�रिरवादीसे 150]000 रू0 नगद दोस्तानाकज+ लिलयागयाथातथाउक्तऋणकीअदायगीहेतुअभिभयुक्तके द्वाराएकअग्रीमधनादेशकमाक 8067198 पिदनांक 15@5@2007 dks पिदया गयाथाजोपिकअभिभयुक्तकेदेनाबैंकमेंउ�लब्धबचतखाताक० 525 से देयथा।�रिरवादीश्रीमतीकपिवतापिमश्राकेद्वाराभारतीयस्टेटबैंकमें उ�लब्धअ�नेबचतखाताक 3017448100 मेंपिदनांक 15@5@2007 कोउक्त psd कोभुगतानहेतुजमापिकयागयाथा।�रंतुअभिभयुक्तकेबचतखातामें �या+प्तराभिशनहीहोनेकेकारणचैकक्रमांक 8067198 अनादरिरतहोगयाथा। अनादरिरतहोनेकीसूचना�रिरवादीकोबैंककेद्वारापिदनाक 17@5@2007 कोदीगई Fkh । psd अनादरणकीसूचना�रिरवादीकेद्वाराअभिभयुक्तको पिदनांक 01@6@2007 को�ंजीकृत�त्रकेमाध्यमसेदीगईथीतथापिवपिहत अवधिधकेभीतर चैकक्रमांक 8067198 पिदनांक 15@5@2007 मेंउल् ल ेखत राभिश 150]000 काभुगताननहीपिकयागया।अभिभयुक्तकेद्वाराउक्तनोपिटस काजवाबअ�ने vf/koDrk केमाध्यमसेभेजागयाथाजिजसमेंअभिभयुक्तके द्वाराचैकवा�सकरडीसीकेमाध्यमसेरकमप्राप्तकरेकहागयाथा। �रिरवादीतथाउसकेअधिधवक्ताकेद्वाराअभिभयुक्तएवंउसकेअधिधवक्तासे उक्तबाबतकईबारसम्�क+ पिकयागयाइसके ckotwn Hkh धिडमाण्डड्राफ्ट देकर pSd वा�सलेनेमेंटाल-मटोलपिकयागया।उक्तकारणसे�रिरवादीकी ओरसेअभिभयुक्तकेलिखलाफधारा 138 ijdzkE; लिलखतअधिधपिनयम 1881 के तहत ifjokn प्रस्तुतपिकयागया ।

¶18

3 fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ekSf[kd ,ao nLrkosth lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fu.kZ; fnukad 24@10@2009 ds }kjk ;s ekurs gq, fd ifjoknh viuk izdj.k lansg ls ijs izekf.kr ugh dj ikbZ vr% vfHk;qDr dks lansg dk ykHk nsrs gq, nks”keqDr dj fn;k ftlds fo:} ;g vihy vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

¶19

4 vihykFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr

¶20

¶21

fu.kZ; izdj.k esa vkbZ lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fof/k ,ao rF; ds vuq:i u gksus ls vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds izko/kkuksa fd mfpr O;k[;k ugh fd xbZ gSA vfHk;qDr }kjk pSd ij vius gLrk{kj ,ao vius [kkrs dk pSd gksuk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gSA /kkjk 139 ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dh mi/kkj.kk vfHk;qDr ds fo:} cukbZ tkuh Fkh ijUrq ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk nkaf.Md izdj.k ds rjg lansg ls ijs izekf.kr gksus dk vk/kkj ysdj ,ao lansg dk ykHk nsdj nks”k eqfDr dk fu.kZ; fn;k x;k gS tks mfpr ugh gSA vr% fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,ao vkns’k vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS ,ao vfHk;qDr nks”kfl} fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vius rdZ ds leFkZu esa fo}ku vfHkoDrk }kjk ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; M/s Kalamani Tex and another vs P. Balasubramanian, ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 10@02@2021] fdzfeuy vihy dz] 123/2021 izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA

¶22

5 mRrjoknh @vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izdj.k dk uksfVl rkfey gksus ds ckn mifLFkfr nh xbZ ijaUrq 16@6@2021 ds i~’pkr mRrjoknh mifLFkr ugha gqvkA fnukad 4@2@2022 dks ,l- ih- lh- ¼Lis’ky iksLV dkMZ½ Hkh izsf”kr fd;k x;k ijUrq fof/kor lwpuk rkfey gksus ds ckn Hkh mRrjoknh dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugha gqvkA

¶23

¶24

vihykFkhZ ds rdZ lqus x;s ,ao izdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA

¶25

7 ifjoknh }kjk vius ifjokn ds leFkZu esa viuk Lo;a dk ijh{k.k djk;k x;k gSA vius lk{; esa ifjoknh us vfHk;qDr ds }kjk fn;k x;k pSd dz-8067198 fnukad 15@5@2007 ¼izn’kZ ih&1½ LVsV cSad dh tek iphZ ¼izn’kZ ih&2½ LVsV cSad dk okilh izfrosnu ¼izn’kZ ih&3½] lwpuk i= dh udy ¼izn’kZ ih&4½] iksLVy jlhn ¼izn’kZ ih&5½ ,oa ikorh ¼izn’kZ ih&6½ izLrqr fd;kA vfHk;qDr }kjk vfHk;qDr dFku esa iz’u dz- 8 ds mRrj esa ;g Lohdk;Z fd;k x;k gS fd izdj.k esa izLrqr pSd dksjs gkykr esa nLr[kr dj mlus ifjoknh

¶26

¶27

dks fn;s Fks vkSj ;g cpko fy;k gS fd ifjoknh us lkft’k dj mls >wBk Qlk jgh gSA

¶28

8 ekuuh; loksZP; U;k;ky; }kjk dykeuh VsDl ¼mijksDr½ ds ekeys esa fn;s x;s vkns’k dh dafMdk 16 ,ao 18 esa fuEufyf[kr micaf/kr fd;k x;k gS%&

¶29

“16. No doubt, and as correctly argued by senior counsel for the appellants, the presumptions raised under Section 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature. As held in MS Narayana Menon v. State of Kerela, which was relied upon in Basalingappa (supra), a probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of “preponderance of probability”, and not mere possibility. These principles were also affirmed in the case of Kumar Exports (supra), wherein it was further held that a bare denial of passing of consideration would not aid the case of accused.

¶30

Even if we take the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar12, where this court held that:

¶31

“Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.”

¶32

9 bl izdj.k esa Hkh vfHk;qDr }kjk dksjs pSd nsuk crk;k x;k gS ijaUrq fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk dafMdk 20 esa ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd lansg ls ijs izekf.kr ugh ik;k vr% vfHk;qDr dks nks”keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA ;g ifjokn izdj.k ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e ds vrZxr izLrqr fd;k x;k gS vr% bl izdj.k esa /kkjk 139 ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e dh mi/kkj.kk dh tkrh gSA ifjoknh ls ;g vis{kk ugh fd tkrh gS fd og viuk izdj.k lansg ls ijs izekf.kr djs vr% fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k fu.kZ; izdj.k es vk,

¶33

¶34

lk{; ds vk/kkj ij fof/k ,ao rF; ds vuq:i uk gksus ls vikLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA

¶35

10 vr% vfiykFkhZ dh vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gS ,oa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa vkns’k fnukad 24@10@2009 dks vikLr djrs gq, mRrjoknh @ vfHk;qDr dks /kkjk 138 ijdzkE; fy[kr vf/kfu;e 1881 esa nks”kfl} fd;k tkrk gS ,ao mls pSd ds cjkcj dh jkf’k 1]50]000@& ds vFkZn.M ls nfa.Mr fd;k tkrk gS ftls rhu ekg ds Hkhrj ifjoknh dks vfHk;qDr }kjk Hkqxrku djuk iM+sxkA vfHk;qDr }kjk mDr vFkZn.M dh jkf’k tek fd;s tkus ij mDr jkf’k ifjoknh dks iznku dh tk;sA vFkZn.M dh jkf’k Hkqxrku uk djus ij vfHk;qDr dks 1 o”kZ dk lJe dkjkokl Hkqxruk iMsxkA

¶36

11 vihykFkhZ dh vihy Lohdkj dh tkrh gSaA

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

¼jtuh nqcs½ U;k;/kh’k

¶39

fujkyk

Smt. Kavita Mishra v. Purushottam Saraf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kavita Mishra v. Purushottam Saraf

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Verma and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs B.L.Sharma

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Jamuna Prasad Shende

Ramkumar Tiwari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bajranglal Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar Gupta