Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of a complaint under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that the underlying loan was time-barred and cheque dates were manipulated. The court held these were mixed questions of law and fact for trial and dismissed the petition in light of Atamjit Singh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~43
KULVINDER SINGH VIRDI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Bachan & Ms. Sandhya Singh, Advs.
versus
JAGMOHAN SINGH MARWAH ..... Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
O R D E R % 12.02.2024
“a) call for records of Complaint Case No.136/2020 titled as ‘Jagmohan Singh Marwah Vs Kulvinder Singh Virdi’ from Ld. Trial Court
b) set-aside/quash the impugned Order dated 17.9.2021 passed in Complaint Case No.136/2020 titled as ‘Jagmohan Singh Marwah Vs Kulvinder Singh Virdi’ by Ms. Chhaya Tyagi, Ld.MM-02 (NI Act) Digital Court, West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and to dismiss the complaint u/s 138 NI.Act.
c) pass any other or further order (s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:05:45
was no acknowledgment or liability since 03.01.2016 (the date on which the loan was to be repaid) to 09.09.2020 (date of issuance of the impugned cheques). It is submitted that as per the loan agreement filed alongwith the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the impugned cheques have been mentioned, which shows that the date on the impugned cheques were manipulated subsequently and, therefore, it is argued that there is no legally enforceable liability as the loan in question was time-barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in Amrit Sandhu
Costar v. State & Anr., 2022:DHC:3628.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:05:45
the underlying debt and/or liability qua Respondent No. 2 was time barred.
4. Prima-facie from the materials placed before us, it is revealed that pursuant to various transactions entered into by and between the (i) Appellant; (ii) Respondent No. 2; and (iii) Jasween Sandhu i.e., Accused No. 2 in the Underlying Complaint, allegedly pertaining to year 2011, the Appellant was owed a sum of approximately Rs.20,10,000/(Rupees Twenty Lakh Ten Thousand). Accordingly Respondent No. 2 issued a cheque bearing number 329623 dated 06.03.2017 drawn on Syndicate Bank, Branch West Punjabi Bagh, Central Market, New Delhi-110026 for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh) in favour of the appellant (the “ Subject Cheque ”).
“8. Once a cheque is issued and upon getting dishonoured a statutory notice is issued, it is for
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:05:45
the Accused to dislodge the legal presumption available Under Sections 118 and 139 reply of the N.I. Act. Whether the cheque in question had been issued for a time barred debt or not, itself prima facie, is a matter of evidence and could not have been adjudicated in an application filed by the Accused Under Section 482 of the CrPC. ”
AMIT SHARMA, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2024/nk
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:05:45
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Section 482 petition can quash NI Act proceedings where the underlying debt is alleged to be time-barred.
Whether alleged manipulation of cheque dates raises a disputed question of fact unfit for quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amrit Sandhu Costar v. State & Anr.Referred¶2
2022:DHC:3628
Atamjit Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶5
Criminal Appeal No. 516 of 2024
Yogesh Jain v. Sumesh ChadhaRelied on
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1760-1761 of 2022
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kulvinder Singh Virdi
Jagmohan Singh Marwah
Amit Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
