MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

'Mechanical Issuance of Summoning Order Not Acceptable: Allahabad High Court Quashes Summons in Cheque Dishonor Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Allahabad High Court emphasizes procedural irregularities and lack of evidence for enforceable debt in Mehrab Logistics case.

The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has quashed the summoning order against Mehrab Logistics and Aviation Ltd. and its Managing Director Abdul Hai Khan in a cheque dishonor case. The court, led by Justice Shamim Ahmed, highlighted substantial procedural lapses and the absence of a legally enforceable debt, setting aside the trial court's summoning order dated 22nd July 2022.

Mehrab Logistics and Aviation Ltd., through its Managing Director Abdul Hai Khan, faced proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for alleged cheque dishonor involving two cheques worth Rs. 5 crore each, issued to the complainant in lieu of a service fee for facilitating the sale of a hotel. The complainant alleged that the cheques, issued per a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The applicants contested the validity of the cheques, claiming they were misplaced and presented fraudulently, and argued that there was no enforceable debt when the cheques were issued.

Procedural Lapses: The High Court identified significant procedural errors in the trial court's handling of the case. "The learned trial court has failed to conduct a proper inquiry as mandated under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and issued the summoning order in a mechanical manner," the judgment observed. The court emphasized the necessity of judicial application of mind in such cases.

Validity of Cheques and Authorization: The applicants contended that the cheques were fraudulently presented and highlighted discrepancies in the signatures on the cheques compared to official documents. The court found substantial differences in the signatures, corroborated by forensic evidence. "The writing habits and general characteristics of the signatures on the cheques and the sale deed indicate they were made by different individuals," the court noted.

The judgment reinforced the principles of strict interpretation of penal provisions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The court reiterated that for a prosecution under this section, there must be a legally enforceable debt or liability. "In the present case, no debt existed at the time the cheques were issued, as the sale of the hotel was completed after the issuance date of the cheques," the court stated.

Justice Shamim Ahmed remarked, "The summoning order dated 22.07.2022 is unsustainable in the eyes of law due to significant procedural lapses and the absence of a legally enforceable debt or liability."

The High Court's decision to quash the summoning order and related proceedings underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring procedural fairness and strict adherence to legal principles in cheque dishonor cases. This judgment not only provides relief to the applicants but also sets a precedent for the importance of proper procedural conduct and the necessity of a legally enforceable debt in prosecutions under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The trial court has been directed to reconsider the case within four months, taking into account the observations and legal guidelines provided by the High Court.

 

Date of Decision: 13th February 2024

Mehrab Logistics and Aviation Ltd. Thru. Its Managing Director Abdul Hai Khan and Another vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and Others

Latest Legal News