High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/35306/2022allowed

Vikas Walia v. State Of Haryana And Another

2025-01-18Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra9 pages

!"#$%"&'('#)*+,, -'. (/ 0' ,,,"!'!'#)"1 -"1(2(

! !"#$ 13 ) )% )#!4"1 ,,, "(5#)%")!( * 67

!"# $

(

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. None for respondent No. 2.

) (

'*"

+, "

&* $"

&(*

&/ 0!12 3

'*"

0. /* 4&

(".

5"$*

. 6 *

$7* ( $". #.

' &

'$ *# (( "( * (

' & "

$ &(* '*"

( "

0 9$ &(* . ( **. *

7 '"*) *

. 0;6191

%** $ < "

( ""

0 32++ ""

3 $

& % *"

$*"

( =" && ""

+ 3

" "

( &7 >'"

''$? 1 #"

*.* $ ""

( / $ '*"

'* ) (*) $ ()

' "

$ "

' "

$ &(*

/ (*&) #"$ ( "$"

* /#"

$ $ &&

(/*

&& .

& $$"

( $

1 ( ( '*"

( 9$$"

. " ."

$ * $ &(* */*

&/* $ &$

& "/ " ()/* (

4 '$ ""

.# $)

* .# $ &(*

"#$"

. "'' & $*".

$- 1

$ 1

.# ) + ("

% ' &.

% "$* .

' "

, *") $#"

( ()&

* ' %""

& ".

( "

+ *'

/&"

#% '$

( #

% $"

) $ &(* $ *"

'*"

. ) ( $ $ *"

. &

&(."

$ &(* ( $". #.

' &

*/* -" ' ') .&

$ * *"

( ) $"

!" # # "$ %

@() !"# $ *

((.

/*'

( " 0

$ $ ( (

/% (# (

( " 0 9$ &(* ((.

(

* / * % " .

(

/*' ;# ")

(("

$ * $ "/*

*. . . $ "

$'**)

1 ' & "

$ &(* '*"

**. "

'# ( " 0 9$ &(* "$. *.**)

' $/* */*) $"

& $.

'"*) *

' & "

(

" " 1 $*&

.# %) $)

*") &

%) "'' $ . 1

"*"

( 0 (

/&"

$ *

$ ( % "&

$#"

$)* $* " (

*) 3 + 9 " ()/*

( ."

$ " & ."

(

()&

4 #% ' "

$ *

& '** $ "

"/ *

% *"

&) & "

((

' ** %.

." -"

'*'**"

'&4"92"%1 :)$#1!4"5 3;")!#$ )3 ;#2)!#$ ;#)"3!# )#!4"15"1(#)<

''4"&4"92"'(%1 :)$#1!4"%'(&4 1="#$!4">:4#0" #1 5 1!? #$ )3 %"@! #1 #!4"1 0' @'0'!3, >"@! #1 #!4"1 0' @'0'!3? ;" )( 0"= 003 ")$#1&" @0" %"@! #1 #!4"1 0' @'0'!3< )%

'''4"&4"92"'(1"!21)"%@3!4"@ ).2)5 '%@"& 2(" #$')(2$$'&'")!$2)%(,

*# ' ( #

" "

A1#B'%"% !4 ! )#!4')= &#)! ')"% ') !4'( ("&!'#) (4 00 55032)0"((

!4"&4"92"4 (@"")51"(")!"%!#!4"@ ).:'!4') 5"1'#%#$('C;#)!4($1#;!4"% !"#):4'&4'!'(%1 :) #1:'!4')!4"5"1'#%#$'!(B 0'%'!38:4'&4"B"1'(" 10'"1<

@!4"5 3""#1!4"4#0%"1')%2"&#21("#$!4"&4"92"8 (!4"& ("; 3@"8; ."( %"; )%$#1!4"5 3;")!#$ !4"( '% ;#2)!#$;#)"3@3='B')= )#!'&"<'):1'!')=8 !#!4"%1 :"1#$!4"&4"92"8D:'!4')!4'1!3% 3(E#$!4" 1"&"'5!#$')$#1; !'#)@34';$1#;!4"@ ).1"= 1%')= !4"1"!21)#$!4"&4"92" (2)5 '%< )%

&!4"%1 :"1#$(2&4&4"92"$ '0(!#; ."!4"5 3;")! #$!4"( '% ;#2)!#$;#)"3!#!4"5 3""#18 (!4"& (" ; 3@"8!#!4"4#0%"1')%2"&#21("#$!4"&4"92"8:'!4') $'$!"")% 3(#$!4"1"&"'5!#$!4"( '%)#!'&", C50 ) !'#), #1!4"5215#("(#$!4'(("&!'#)8A%"@!#$ #!4"10' @'0'!3F;" )( 0"= 003")$#1&" @0"%"@!#1#!4"1 0' @'0'!3,

'$ $

(* " & . /* & (

& & "

& &)

. "

/*$ 1 ( B" &C "'"

( %$

% &7 *" . /*

& . &

(( .

/$7 '$

*( (( D"

. & ((

&("

(( ""

$ &(*"

. /* &

" "

"&.

''$ 1 $ " (*"

( # $

'*'**"

"" ." & ''$ .

"&"

$ &&"

*) % ( ( % * *.**)

' $/* "/ & $& & "

/7 (" 4 C $

(

< C/*

/#"

$ &&

" "

& ( *.**) ' $/* "/

" &) ( 4'

"% () (

% * & /% ( "

% "% %

( &)

*.**) ' $/* "/ "

&) % *"

& ("

$- E (

% * & ("

& " "

($/"

!$ 1 " "

()& &) "

$ /*$

) /#"

%** "

" "

% . $"

( &)

4 $

"( (

'$ "

& /.

. %** '$ & " " 1

$ 3

$**) ()/*

( "9$ &(*

&$ * %

( #

(* $ "

&) $ ""

(

% ) / 1 (*$"

$ "

!D ))"C21" $'"

$ () & %

$ ""

33 4($

&/ $ $ & $ %*

(*$.

*$ ( " $&

$ ""

'$&

$#.

"&"

))"C21" $ () % "(

$ ""

(* &

#* ".

$ D&

"&"

"'' $

. & &

% .

7 *

($#*)

( "

2+ + ** < %

"&"

& !D

;D @ $ ""

/ &

%$ "&"*) $ ""

((

&$ (

$ &(* ;# (*

7 &

!D ''$

2+ / %"

** ' ""$.

%$ /$& ()/*

$ & ,3

%$ % $*&"

& !D

! "$"

/ #

$ D(*$ "

()/* ( "9$ &(* "

( *

- $ " %

' "

$ *"

*F A 4 #%

/# C $

(

%$ *")

"$"

/ #

% .# .# $ ( #

((*$/* *) % *.**)

' $/* "/ /.

" % "% /

& $. $$&$

$ & "

( *.**) ' $/* "/ & $&

*$ ."

"% /# <.

* ;7*&

G".& ""

&' (

% & ("

()&

"&"

$ &(* " & /$7

'$ ' *"

/$ $ " &

&* ( (

*% *"

" % by the High Court of Kerala in Joseph Sartho v. Gopinathan : (2008) KLJ 784, wherein the representation of the cheque was for a sum higher than the amount that was due when it was presented for encashment and it was held that the drawer of the cheque could not be convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N. I. Act and by the High Court of Gujarat in Shree Corporation v. Anilbhai Puranbhai Bansal : 2018 (2) GLH 105 and by the Delhi High Court in Alliance Infrastructure Project Ltd. v. Vinay Mittal : ILR (2010) III Delhi 459.

16.

In view of the above discussed proposition of law, it is apparent that since in this case as on the date of presentation of the cheque in question for presentation, only a sum of Rs. 38.90 Lakhs was due, even as per admission made by the respondent/complainant, whereas the cheque was for

much higher amount and since no writing or indorsement had been made on the cheque regarding receipt of part payment against the sum of Rs. 55 Lakhs, therefore, the provisions of Section 138 of the N. I. Act were not attracted and as a consequence, the impugned complaint filed against the petitioner and subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom are not sustainable as the amount of Rs. 55 Lakhs, which was represented on the cheque, was not a legally enforceable debt on that particular date. Accordingly, for the reasons indicated above, the present petition is allowed. As a consequence, the impugned complaint along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom is quashed.

+,,