Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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     

Latest Legal News