Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     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    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

"No Ground to Quash FIR in Cheque Dishonour Case, Observes Himachal Pradesh High Court"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, led by Justice Virender Singh, upheld the legal process in a cheque dishonour case, dismissing a petition seeking to quash a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The decision, delivered on December 27, 2023, emphasized the importance of evidence in matters of financial transactions and allegations of theft.

The petitioner, identified as Abhishek Rao, had approached the court with a plea to quash a complaint and subsequent proceedings concerning a cheque, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The case revolved around a non-CTS (Cheque Truncation System) cheque, which the petitioner alleged was stolen and presented for encashment.

In a detailed judgment, Justice Virender Singh observed, "When nothing is there on the file, in this regard, then, the said ground cannot be considered to quash the FIR, that too, while exercising the powers, under Section 482 CrPC." This remark highlights the court's stance on the insufficiency of evidence regarding the petitioner's claim of cheque theft.

The court meticulously examined the Reserve Bank of India's guidelines and circulars related to CTS cheques. It was noted that the non-CTS cheques were not entirely invalidated at the time of the cheque's issuance. Justice Singh's decision underlined, "The learned counsel appearing for the accused could not point out any circular, which prohibits the acceptance of non-CTS cheques on 31st August, 2011."

The ruling is significant as it sheds light on the legal intricacies of cheque dishonour cases and the necessity of substantial evidence in allegations of theft. The court's decision to dismiss the petition reinforces the judiciary's commitment to uphold the sanctity of legal procedures in financial disputes.

The accused, through his counsel, has been directed to appear before the trial court on January 11, 2024, to proceed with the case as per the law. This case serves as a precedent for similar cases involving financial instruments and the importance of adhering to RBI guidelines.

Decided on : 27-12-2023

ABHISHEK RAO VS STATE OF H.P. AND ANOTHER

 

Similar News