Allahabad High Court: Vivek Varma, J., refused to quash a complaint case filed under Section 138 NI Act and directed the trial court to expedite the hearing.
Instant application was filed to quash the proceedings of a Complaint Case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate.
Applicant’s Counsel submitted that the cheque in question was not issued against any existing debt or liability and the date of service of notice was not disclosed in the complaint. It was added that until the date of service of notice is not disclosed, the cause of action to initiate the prosecution under Section 138 NI Act will not arise.
Though the AGA appearing for the State submitted that the disclosure of the date of service of notice is not mandatory. The said is a matter of evidence and can be seen during the trial.
Analysis, Law and Decision
Bench first referred to Section 138 of NI Act and further, the decision of Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555 wherein presumption under Section 144 of the Evidence Act and Section 27 of the General Clauses Act was enunciated.
The above case was followed in the Supreme Court decision of Ajeet Seeds Limited v. K. Gopala Krishnaiah, (2014) 12 SCC 685, wherein it was held that the absence of averments in the complaint about service of notice upon the accused is the matter of evidence.
High Court in view of the above settled legal position stated that the complaint cannot be thrown at the threshold even if it does not make a specific averment with regard to the service of notice on the drawer on a given date.
Though the Bench added that the complaint must contain basic facts regarding the mode and manner of issuance of notice to the drawer of the cheque.
“…factum of disputed service of notice requires adjudication on the basis of evidence. The same can only be done and appreciated by the trial court and not by this Court under the jurisdiction conferred by Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
Burden of proving that the cheque was issued for debt or liability will also be upon the applicant and can be gone into by the Trial Court.
Pre-trial cannot be held before the actual trial begins. At the stage of summoning, the Magistrate has only to see whether a prime facie case is made out or not.
Therefore, in view of the Supreme court decision and the reasons stated above, the present application was dismissed.
The complaint case had been pending since 2007 and the as per Negotiable Instruments Act the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act ought to be concluded within 6 months, hence Court directed the lower court to expedite the hearing. [Ganesh Babu Gupta v. State of U.P., 2021 SCC OnLine All 420, decided on 7-06-2021]
