Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

Mandatory Inquiry Satisfactorily Conducted: High Court Upholds Legality of Summoning Orders Under NI Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal, upheld the legality of summoning orders in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The Court confirmed that the mandatory inquiries, as required under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), were conducted satisfactorily.

Justice Bansal, in his landmark judgment, stated, “There is sufficient material available on record to summon the accused. Therefore, a prima-facie case punishable u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is made out against the accused.” This statement underscores the thoroughness of the Magistrate’s preliminary inquiry and reinforces the strength of the judicial process in financial misconduct cases.

The judgment resolved challenges to the summoning orders, focusing on compliance with the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC. The Court observed that for the purpose of Section 202 of the CrPC read with Section 145 of the NI Act, the Magistrate only needed to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offense under Section 138 of the NI Act were prima facie made out by the complainant.

In his detailed judgment, Justice Bansal also highlighted the role of the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. He stated, “At the stage of issuance of summons, for the purpose of Section 202 of the CrPC read with section 145 of the NI Act, the learned MM is only required to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act have been prima facie made out by the complainant.”

The ruling reaffirms the presumption of a legally enforceable debt at the summoning stage, subject to rebuttal during the trial. This decision is seen as a reaffirmation of the judicial system’s commitment to ensuring that cases under the NI Act are handled with the due diligence they warrant.

Date of Decision: November 10, 2023

NORTHERN INDIA PAINT COLOUR AND VARNISH CO. LLP  VS SUSHIL CHAUDHARY     

Similar News