Dismissed

Vinod Sharma v. Sh Dinesh Kumar Meena and Anr.

Rajasthan HC12 Nov 2018CRLW/628/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge bench rejected multiple writ petitions seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court held that the compromise deed expressly acknowledged a legally enforceable debt, distinguishing it from cited precedent where debt was not admitted. Allegations of threat were held insufficient for quashing.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were rejected; the State Bank of India cases under N.I. Act are to be tried.

Vinod Sharma Vs Sh Dinesh Kumar Meena and Anr. — Money Laundering | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 669/2018

¶3

Vinod Sharma S/o Late Shri Bansi Lal Sharma B/c Brahmin, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 56-57, Bal Nagar East, Near Chharra Factory Goner Road, Jaipur Office Address Junior Clerk, Governmnet Central Place, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Late Shri Chanda Lal, R/o Chandramahal Garden Restaurant, Agra Road, Jaipur.

¶7

State of Rajasthan through its PP, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 626/2018

¶11

Vinod Sharma S/o Late Sh. Bansi Lal Sharma B/c Brahmin, R/o 56-57, Bal Nagar East, Near Chharra Factory Goner Road, Jaipur Office Address Junior Clerk, Government Central Place, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Late Sh. Chanda Lal, R/o Chandramahal Garden Restaurant, Agra Road, Jaipur.

¶15

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 627/2018

----Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Late Sh. Chanda Lal, R/o Chandramahal Garden Restaurant, Agra Road, Jaipur.

¶22

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Pp, Rajasthan High Court,

¶23

(2 of 4)

¶24

[CRLW-669/2018]

¶25

Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

¶26

----Respondents

¶27

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 628/2018

----Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Late Sh. Chanda Lal, R/o Chandramahal Garden Restaurant, Agra Road, Jaipur.

¶32

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Pp, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

S.B. Criminal Writ No. 663/2018

¶35

Vinod Sharma S/o Late Shri Bansi Lal Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 56-57, Bal Nagar East, Near Chharra Factory Goner Road, Jaipur Office Address Junior Clerk, Government Central Place, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur

¶36

----Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Late Shri Chanda Lal, R/o Chandramahal Garden Restaurant, Agra Road, Jaipur.

¶39

State of Rajasthan through its PP, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

¶40

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nathu Lal Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP

¶41

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶42

Judgment / Order

¶43

12/11/2018

¶44

Petitioner has preferred these writ petitions seeking direction in nature of writ of ceritiorari or any other writ to quash and set aside the criminal complaints pending before the Learned Special

¶45

(3 of 4)

¶46

[CRLW-669/2018]

¶47

Metropolitan Magistrate N.I. Act No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and for quashing the entire proceedings.

¶48

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that a compromise was arrived at between the complainant and the petitioner and under threat and cheques were obtained by the complainant which on presentation were dishonoured by the bank. It is contended that the cheques were not presented before the bank and were not dishonoured and there is no entry in his account with regard to deduction of cheque dishonour charges. 3. It is contended that there was no legally enforceable debt against the petitioner, reliance is placed on “Lalit Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another” (2008) 5 Supreme Court Cases 638. 4. I have considered the contentions and have perused the compromise arrived at between the parties on 10.09.2014. 5. In the compromise, it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner agrees to the debt of Rs.54,00,000/- and in view of the same, he issued six cheques. “Lalit Kumar Sharma and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another” (supra) was

¶49

a case where a complaint was filed in respect of dishonour of second cheque issued in a compromise in lieu of first cheque already dishonoured and subject-matter of another complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶50

In the present case in hand, petitioners in the compromise itself has mentioned that an amount of Rs.54,00,000/- is due, hence the same is a legally enforceable debt and complaint for cheques paid in discharge of legally enforceable debt is maintainable.

¶51

(4 of 4)

¶52

[CRLW-669/2018]

¶53

The judgment of Apex Court on facts do not apply in the present case as in the present case, the cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt.

¶54

The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the cheques were issued under threat cannot be taken note of at this stage. No ground is made out for quashing the proceedings, hence the criminal writ petitions deserve to be rejected.

¶55

The criminal writ petitions are accordingly, rejected.

¶56

Trial Court while deciding the complaints will not be prejudiced by the order passed by this Court.

¶57

A copy of this order be placed in the connected files.

¶58

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶59

Arti/71-75

Vinod Sharma v. Sh Dinesh Kumar Meena and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Sharma v. Sh Dinesh Kumar Meena and Anr.

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

Chand@Chandu@Chandra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rampyara Son of Bhishnya Bairva Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Sitaram@Lala S/O Shri Nahar Singh B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jassu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Vinod Sharma Vs Sh Dinesh Kumar Meena and Anr.

Vinod Sharma Vs Sh Dinesh Kumar Meena and Anr.