Single Judge allowed an interim application but dismissed the main quashing petition under Section 138 NI Act, holding that presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NCSH require trial-stage determination of liability and evidence.
Quashing application dismissed on the ground that disputed liability must be adjudicated in trial court.
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.
#1#
CRL.M.NO.21026-M of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRL.M.NO.21026-M of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF ORDER: 23.7.2010
Pooja
.....Petitioner
vs.
Sarabjit Singh
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. O.S. Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner.
JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL)
Crl.M.No.37153 of 2010
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl.M.No.21026-M of 2010
Prayer is for quashing complaint No.2334 of 6.8.2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1981 (for short “the Act”) filed by the respondent.
Allegations against the petitioner in the complaint (P.2) are that she had taken a friendly loan from the complainant-respondent to meet her immediate requirements and cheque dated 7.1.2009 (P.3) was issued by her to the respondent in order to discharge her legal liability, which has been dishonored.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had handed over a booklet containing 24 signed cheques of Rs.520/- each to her Advocate Kuldeep Bawa since he had promised to help her from taking loan from Finance Company and the cheques were to be submitted towards future repayment of the loan instalments, however, the loan was not arranged. Said Advocate in connivance with his Munshi (clerk) had not returned the cheque book, which has now been misused by the respondent.
#2#
CRL.M.NO.21026-M of 2010
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner is not disputing her signatures on the cheques but is alleging their misuse and thus denying the debt/liability. Keeping in view the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, it is evident that the appropriate forum for raising such pleas is the trial Court, where such presumptions can be rebutted by leading evidence. Therefore, at this stage, pleas cannot be entertained.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
July 23, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash a Section 138 complaint where the petitioner disputes the liability by alleging misappropriation of cheque book but admits the signature.
Whether pleas regarding misplacement of cheque book and denial of debt are admissible at the stage of quashing under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pooja
Sarabjit Singh
JASWANT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
