Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

 

Similar News