Bail | Right to Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right Under Article 21: PH High Court    |     Postal Department’s Power to Enhance Penalties Time-Barred, Rules Allahabad High Court    |     Tenants Cannot Cross-Examine Landlords Unless Relationship is Disputed: Madras High Court    |     NDPS | Conscious Possession Extends to Vehicle Drivers: Telangana High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in Ganja Trafficking Case    |     Aid Reduction Of Without Due Process Unlawful: Rajasthan High Court Restores Full Grants for Educational Institutions    |     Assessment of Notional Income in Absence of Proof Cannot Be 'Mathematically Precise,' Says Patna High Court    |     NCLT's Resolution Plan Overrides State Tax Claims: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Demands Against Patanjali Foods    |     An Agreement is Not Voidable if the Party Could Discover the Truth with Ordinary Diligence: Calcutta High Court Quashes Termination of LPG Distributorship License    |     Independent Witnesses Contradict Prosecution's Story: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquit Accused in Arson Case    |     Merely Being a Joint Account Holder Does Not Attract Liability Under Section 138 of NI Act:  Gujarat High Court    |     Higher Court Cannot Reappreciate Evidence Unless Perversity is Found: Himachal Pradesh High Court Refused to Enhance Maintenance    |     Perpetual Lease Allows Division of Property: Delhi High Court Affirms Partition and Validity of Purdah Wall    |     "Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Videography in Temple Premises Limited to Religious Functions: Kerala High Court Orders to Restrict Non-Religious Activities on Temple Premises    |     Past Service Must Be Counted for Pension Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Affirms Pension Rights for Daily Wage Employees    |     'Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ Does Not Mean Beyond All Doubt: Madras High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Man Convicted of Murdering Mother-in-Law    |    

'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

Similar News