Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1329 (PNJ)

Erec Engg. Co. v. Yaduvanshi Engg. Works

2002-11-29

JAIN

body2002
Judgment Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC filed by the accused seeking quashment of the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. In the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it was alleged by the accused petitioners that they had placed on order on 8.7.1995 for supply of material with the respondent and again on 18.7.1995, had placed an order with the respondent. It was alleged that vide letter dated 28.7.1995, the respondent had acknowledged the receipt of both the orders and had shown his inability to supply the goods because of financial crisis and asked the petitioners for 100% advance with regard to the first order and 60% advance in respect of second order. It was alleged that the respondent requested for issuing cheques at the earliest in order to purchase the material and to deliver the goods. It was alleged that on 14.8.1995, the petitioners felt sorry to inform that the first cheque dated 2.8.1995 for Rs. 12,200/- with regard to the delivery of first order was returned by the bank and in lieu thereof, the petitioners sent demand draft and requested the respondent to send back the cheque and also the receipt of the demand draft. It was alleged that on 16.8.1995, the petitioners sent the other cheque for Rs. 40,000/- towards 60% advance for the second order. It was alleged that since nothing was heard from the respondent, the petitioners cancelled both the orders, including second order for which 60% advance amounting to Rs. 40,000/- had already been sent by cheque. It was alleged that the petitioners asked the respondent to return both the cheques and in the meanwhile the payment of the cheque dated 16.8.1995 for Rs. 40,000/- was also stopped. It was alleged that even subsequently the petitioners had been writing to the respondent to return the cheque for Rs. 40,000/-. It was alleged that as per the allegations made in the criminal complaint, the respondent had deposited cheque for Rs. 40,000/- with the bank, which was dishonoured and the complainant had issued notice dated 13.10.1995 (information was received by the complainant about the dishonour on 30.9.1995). It was alleged that in fact petitioners had not received any notice regarding the dishonour of the cheque. It was alleged that the petitioners again requested the complainant to return back the cheque on account of non-supply of the material. It was alleged that in fact petitioners had not received any notice regarding the dishonour of the cheque. It was alleged that the petitioners again requested the complainant to return back the cheque on account of non-supply of the material. It was alleged that the information about the filing of the criminal complaint was received by the petitioners prior to the next date of hearing i.e. 6.11.1996 and it transpired that the complainant had filed the complaint on 20.11.1995. It was alleged that since the petitioners had cancelled the orders, the petitioners had rightly ordered stoppage of payment of the cheque for Rs. 40,000/- It was alleged that no case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was made out against the petitioners, as the petitioners were not liable to pay Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. It was accordingly prayed that the criminal complaint summoning order and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners be quashed. 3. While issuing notice of motion, vide order dated 26.11.1997, learned Magistrate was directed not to pronounce the final order. Subsequently, petition was admitted. No reply on behalf of complainant respondent has been filed. 4. At the time when the case was fixed for arguments, no one had put in appearance, either on behalf of the petitioners or on behalf of the respondent. However, I have gone through the record minutely. 5. After perusing the record, in my opinion, no case for interference by this Court in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC is made out, on the facts and circumstances of the present case. Admittedly, the accused petitioners had issued cheque for Rs. 40, 000/- to the complainant. Whether the petitioners were liable to pay the said amount of Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant or not is question to the determined by the Courts after recording evidence. In fact, under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Thus, the onus is on the accused petitioners to prove that in fact they were not liable to pay Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. Thus, the onus is on the accused petitioners to prove that in fact they were not liable to pay Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. So far as provisions of Section 43 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, are concerned the same shall also be considered by the Court after considering the evidence that may be led by the parties. However, in view of the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, at this stage, it could not be said, by this Court, in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.PC, that the criminal complaint or the summoning order passed by the learned Magistrate were liable to be quashed merely because the accused petitioners were alleging that they had cancelled the order and/or were not liable to pay Rs. 40,000/- to the complainant. 6. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this petition the same is hereby dismissed. However, nothing stated above shall be taken as an expression if opinion on the merits of the case.