Anand Kumar v. State Of Haryana And Another
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : May 03, 2024 ANAND KUMAR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI
Present:
Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
*** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.
1.
Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings emanating from a private complaint bearing CIS No. NACT-167-2021, as instituted against him by the respondent No.2, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act'). In addition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the:- (i) order dated 02.07.2021, whereby, the learned Magistrate concerned has summoned him in the complaint (supra); and (ii) order dated 12.12.2023, whereby, the learned Magistrate concerned has served notice of accusation upon him.
!
" ! "
#
!
" " "$
"
% "
" & %! "
$
'
( % )) )** +,)# ) + ₹,))))))-$ !
' . '
.
/ $
! (%" % .
" !
!
""
+0)# ) +'
(
+ )1 ) + %( ".
" (" !
". " (" +*)1 ) + $ %" % ! 1 2"
"
"
+#0 3
&" "$
'4+!
) )5 ) + "" 6 !
+ + ) # 5.
For ready reference, the relevant extract of the impugned complaint is reproduced hereinafter:-
! "#
$% &'
( ) * + , -*.+ , - /
#- !+ 0& 1+ 1 0 1+ " 2 23
2
$ 1 3 4) 5 6 $) 0 $ $ $ 4) 7
! 1 3 4) 63
4 ,
0 1 8 1 0 1'
7 ( + +
) "9 & : ' -( - - 3 3 7 ( +
+
)"9 & ' &
& 7 +
) " '
;
$
<
;
$
3 & 2& & <
;
$
3 ;
0
3 2= 2
; <
2 6 &
-
23
&
0 1 $
3 23
;
3
& 23 > ? + 2
& "7 (
@ 7 ((+( +
) -( - - * - - ( +
+
A AB( +( +
)' C
;
2 + 3 0 % ,
- .. 7 * : * ! - - 0
0 1 & 7# +( +
) "
& & ' & <
23
-( - -+ % 7* : D % 23 0 % 2& 2 , .*/(
-*. E190
0 1 % 2 ) F
F
0 % / - - 2
!
# 0 %
&
C 3
&
& 22 7 * : 23 0 % &
2&
/ , 2
< // G 6.
The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his beseeching for grant of the hereinabove extracted reliefs, submits that neither the compromise deed, in pursuance whereof the dishonoured cheque is alleged to have been issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2, nor the agreement to sell dated 16.03.2018, nor the Civil Suit No.698 of 2020, wherein compromise was allegedly effected, have been enclosed with the impugned complaint. In fact, the respondent No.2 has only annexed the photocopy of an agreement to sell dated 25.10.2012, which is denied by the petitioner for the reason of its being a fabricated document. Moreover, no suit for specific performance of this agreement has yet been filed by the respondent No.2. 7.
Concluding his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even as per the case set up by the respondent No.2, there can be no legally enforceable debt against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the alleged compromise was effected between the parties so that the respondent No.2 could withdraw the Civil Suit No.698 of 2020, however, neither the said suit has been withdrawn, nor the alleged compromise deed has been produced on record. Therefore, prima facie, there is no case made out against the petitioner. 8.
Per contra, the learned State counsel and the learned counsel for
the respondent No.2 have vociferously opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that, all these pleas are disputed questions of facts, which can only be adjudicated by the learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, which is yet to become adduced before it.
9.
This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the contesting litigants and also perused the record, but, is of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition. The reason for forming this inference is that the pleas/issues raised by the petitioner before this Court are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be appreciated and adjudicated in the instant proceedings instituted under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 10.
Moreover, the petitioner has nowhere disputed the genuineness of his signatures on the dishonoured cheque, rather has come up with a bald plea that the respondent No.2 had managed to get the disputed undated blank signed cheque from one deed writer by misrepresentation and in an unauthorized manner. However, to the considered mind of this Court, such a bald plea cannot be readily and naively accepted by this Court at this stage, as the same is purely a defence of the petitioner, which can be appreciated only by the learned trial Court, at an appropriate stage of trial. Moreover, once there is no dispute with regard to existence of bona fide signatures on the dishonoured cheque, the presumption in law as provided under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the N.I. Act gets invoked and it is for the petitioner to rebut the same during trial by leading cogent evidence.
11.
Gainful reference in this regard can be made to "K.N. Beena vs. Muniyappan and Another", (2001) 8 SCC 458, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that "in view of the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act read with Section 118 thereof, the Court had to presume that the cheque had been issued for discharging a debt or liability. The said presumption was rebuttable and could be rebutted by the accused by proving the contrary. But mere denial or rebuttal by the accused was not enough. The accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability." +
7% "' < 3
; 3 $ . ,< + 2 % 3 % +
$ /+ & 2 2 &
& 3
+ E 0 =
%
2&
+# 7% "'
,
!! ""%
8$ "26.... we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability......... As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant."
+1 "" '
"&
$
10 '9' !%
"
% '
'
(
+: 9
;
<
(KULDEEP TIWARI) May 03, 2024 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether Reportable :
Yes/No