Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

High Court Refused To Quash Complaint U/S 138 N.I. Act Against Wife

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, presided over by Hon'ble Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The case, MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 13433 of 2023, involved the quashing of a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning the alleged dishonor of a cheque.

The petitioner, Bhawna Chourasia, sought the quashment of a complaint filed by her husband, Surya Pratap Singh, alleging that she failed to deposit Rs.11,00,000 in a fixed deposit and subsequently issued a dishonored cheque for Rs.10,00,000.

Justice Shukla, in his observation, stated, "The basic ingredients of Section 138 of the Act are available and the cognizance on the said complaint has yet to be taken." This highlights the court's stance on the premature nature of the petition, emphasizing that the complete recording and cross-examination of the complainant's statement had not yet taken place.

The petitioner argued that the complaint was an abuse of the process of law, citing previous complaints against the respondent for physical and mental torture. Additionally, the petitioner's counsel raised questions about the legally enforceable debt and the absence of consideration in the complaint, referring to the precedent set in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. vs. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. & Ors.

Contrastingly, the respondent's counsel argued for the presence of basic ingredients required under Section 138 of the NI Act, supported by legal presumptions under Section 118 of the Act. They cited the judgment of Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. to bolster their claim.

Justice Shukla referred to the criteria outlined in Section 138 of the NI Act, stating, "The complaint must contain the following ingredients: a legally enforceable debt, a cheque drawn for discharge of debt or liability, and its dishonor due to insufficient funds."

Ultimately, the court ruled that the quashment of the complaint at this initial stage was not warranted, leading to the dismissal of the petition. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural nuances in cases involving the dishonor of cheques and the interpretation of legally enforceable debts under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Date of Decision: 20th November 2023

BHAWNA CHOURASIA  VS SURYA PRATAP SINGH

Latest Legal News