Disposed¶22

Sanjay Naik v. Suraj Kumar Naik

Orissa HC4 Apr 2025CRLMC/905/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 138 NI Act quashing of cheque dishonour complaint; premature presentation/deposit of cheque contrary to agreement dated 20.05.2022; unreplied statutory notice under Section 138(b) NI Act; presumption under Section 138 NI Act r/w Section 114 Evidence Act; rebuttable presumption, burden on accused to rebut through trial; expedition direction under Section 143(2) NI Act six-month mandate; ICC Case No. 242 of 2023 instituted 29.09.2023; D.W.1 deposition, agreement exhibited as Exhibit-C-7; CRLMC Orissa High Court 2025; Sanjay Naik v. Suraj Kumar Naik.

What did the court decide?

The CRLMC was disposed of; the prayer to quash the ICC case was not entertained at this stage, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible. ¶22

Sanjay Naik Vs Suraj Kumar Naik — Cheque Dishonour | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The CRLMC was disposed of; the prayer to quash the ICC case was not entertained at this stage, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether ICC Case No. 242 of 2023 under Section 138 N.I. Act should be quashed on the ground that the cheque, issued pursuant to the parties' agreement dated 20.05.2022, was deposited prematurely in contravention of that agreement, vitiating the complaint.

¶16

Court's answer

Since the petitioner did not reply to the statutory notice under Section 138(b) NI Act, the presumption under Section 138 NI Act read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act operates against him.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

The presumption being rebuttable, the petitioner is bound to discharge the burden of rebuttal by undergoing the process of trial.

¶18

Key takeaways

At this stage the Court is not inclined to entertain the petition seeking quashing of the entire ICC case.ratio¶19
As the complaint case has been pending since 2023 and Section 143(2) NI Act requires its conclusion within six months, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the present case as expeditiously as possible.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Sibo Sankar Mishra, J.), CRLMC No. 905 of 2025, Sanjay Naik v. Suraj Kumar Naik, decided 04.04.2025: The petitioner, accused in ICC Case No. 242 of 2023 (Section 138 N.I. Act) instituted on 29.09.2023, sought quashing of the entire complaint, alleging that the cheque issued pursuant to an agreement dated 20.05.2022 had been deposited prematurely in contravention of that agreement. The Court held that, as the petitioner never replied to the statutory notice under Section 138(b) NI Act, the rebuttable presumption under Section 138 NI Act read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act operated against him and could be discharged only through trial; it therefore declined to entertain the quashing petition at that stage. Noting the complaint pending since 2023 despite the six-month conclusion mandate of Section 143(2) NI Act, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial as expeditiously as possible and disposed of the CRLMC.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

CRLMC No. 905 of 2025

¶3

Sanjay Naik

¶4

…. Petitioner(s)

¶5

Mr. J. Pal, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

Suraj Kumar Naik …. Opposite Party (s)

¶8

Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

ORDER

Order No.

04.04.2025

1. Heard.

¶15

The petitioner is an accused in ICC Case No. 242 of 2023 instituted by the opposite party on 29.09.2023 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶16

Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheque was issued pursuance to an agreement dated 20.05.2022. The cheque issued by the petitioner has been deposited prematurely by contravening the conditions agreed by the parties vide agreement dated 20.05.2022. Therefore, he submits that the complaint is vitiated vis-a vis the agreement.

¶17

Page 1 of 3

¶18

It is an admitted fact on record that notice under Section 138 (b) of NI Act was issued to the petitioner which has not been replied by him. Therefore, presumption under Section 138 of NI Act r/w Section 114 of Evidence Act operates against the petitioner. This being a rebuttal presumption the petitioner is bound to discharge the burden by undergoing the process of trial. At this stage, Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the opposite party is also relying upon the same agreement. He has relied upon the deposition of D.W.1, who has exhibited the agreement in subject as exhibit-C-7. Therefore, Mr. Pal submits that the case of both the petitioner and opposite party hinges upon the same agreement dated 20.05.2022 and reading of the agreement falsify the complaint itself. Hence, he seeks indulgence of this Court for quashing of the entire ICC case.

¶19

The trial of the present case is proceeding at an expected pace. Admittedly the petitioner has not replied to the statutory notice. Therefore, presumption operates against him. Hence, burden lies on the petitioner to rebut the presumption. Therefore, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. However, regard being had to the fact the complaint case is pending since 2023 and under the command of Section

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

143 (2) of NI Act, it ought to have been concluded within a period of six months, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial court to do well to see that the trial of the present case be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

With the aforesaid observation, the CRLMC is disposed of.

¶23

(S.S. Mishra) Judge

¶24

Ashok

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 05-Apr-2025 15:03:08

¶27

Page 3 of 3

Sanjay Naik v. Suraj Kumar Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Naik v. Suraj Kumar Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Das Vs State of Odisha

Ajaya Kumar Nath Vs State of Odisha

Alok Kumar Pradhan Vs Station House Officer, Cyber Crime Police Station, Andhra Pradesh

Basudev Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Haribandhu Kisan@Pradhan@Padhan Vs Upendra Kisan

Seshan Nayak@Dhirendra Kumar Routray Vs State of Odisha