Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

U/S 138 N.I. Act: Continuation of Proceedings Would Constitute Misuse of Legal Process: High Court in Cheque Dishonour Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings in a cheque dishonour case involving M/s Realtech Developments and Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd and others against Ranbir Singh. The case, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, centered on a cheque for ₹36,76,234 issued by the petitioners, which exceeded the actual agreed refund amount of ₹23,54,573 to the respondent.

The complaint, initially filed under Sections 138/141/142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sought prosecution of the petitioners following the dishonour of the cheque. The cheque in question was issued as part of a refund for a flat booking made by the respondent with the petitioners. However, due to a recession in the real estate market, the respondent requested a refund, leading to the disputed transaction.

In his judgement, Justice Gupta noted, “Having regard to all the afore-said facts and circumstances, continuation of the proceedings in the complaint will be misuse of the process of law.” This observation underlines the court’s stance on the misuse of legal proceedings in cases where the facts and intentions are clear and undisputed.

The court recognized that the petitioners had already refunded the agreed amount of ₹23,54,573 to the complainant. It was established that the issuance of a cheque for an inflated amount was a mistake, and not an intentional act of fraud or deceit.

Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent’s calculation sheet, which suggested a higher refund amount, was prepared independently and was neither executed nor agreed upon by the petitioners.

 Date of Decision: 12 January 2024

 M/s Realtech Developments and Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd and others VS Ranbir Singh

 

Latest Legal News