Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Subhash Birdichand Patni, filed two criminal applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of criminal complaints filed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In Criminal Application No. 668 of 2011, the respondents Deepak Uttamchand Jain, Santosh Deepak Jain, and Nishant Deepak Jain had filed a complaint alleging that a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000 issued by the applicant was dishonoured. In Criminal Application No. 358 of 2012, the respondent Ramchander Murthy had filed a complaint alleging that a cheque for Rs. 3,00,000 issued by the applicant was dishonoured. The applicant contended that the cheques were not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability and that the complaints were filed maliciously. The respondents argued that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act applied and that the applicant had not rebutted it. The court examined the legal position regarding the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, which is rebuttable and places the burden on the accused to prove the absence of a debt or liability. The court held that at the stage of quashing, it cannot go into the defence evidence or consider whether the presumption has been rebutted. The court found that the applicant had not produced any evidence to rebut the presumption and that the allegations in the complaints prima facie constituted an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Consequently, the court dismissed both applications, holding that the quashing was not warranted and that the trial should proceed.
Headnote
A) Negotiable Instruments Act - Dishonour of Cheque - Presumption under Section 139 - Rebuttable Presumption - The presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or liability is rebuttable and the accused must prove the contrary on a preponderance of probabilities - At the stage of quashing, the court cannot go into the defence evidence or rebut the presumption - Held that the complaints cannot be quashed as the accused failed to rebut the presumption at this stage (Paras 5-8) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Complaint - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - The High Court should not exercise inherent powers to quash a complaint when the allegations prima facie constitute an offence and the accused has not rebutted the statutory presumption - Held that the applications for quashing were premature and dismissed (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be rebutted at the stage of quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the complaints for dishonour of cheques should be quashed
Final Decision
Both criminal applications are dismissed. The complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall proceed in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881 is rebuttable
- burden on accused to prove absence of debt or liability
- quashing under Section 482 CrPC not warranted when triable issues exist
