Jharkhand High Court Rejects Petition; Sends Matter To Trial To Verify Debt Clearance In Cheque Bounce Case

Jharkhand High Court Rejects Petition; Sends Matter To Trial To Verify Debt Clearance In Cheque Bounce Case

Cites the decision of the Supreme Court in a previous matter

The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a petition to quash a cheque bounce case. It emphasized that to know if the petitioner settled the debt for which the cheques were issued, required a complete trial.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary added, “The defence of the petitioner cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding in the exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

A petition was filed to cancel the order against the petitioner for which cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881.

The petitioner, Moina Khatoon issued a cheque for Rs. 80,000 to the complainant to purchase cement from Abhinav Trading. However, the bank dishonored the cheque due to insufficient funds. The complainant re-presented the cheque and an additional post-dated cheque for Rs.64,400, which was also dishonored.

The complainant demanded payment against the cheques and alleging forgery, sent a legal notice to the petitioner.

As the petitioner failed to settle the dues of Rs. 2.23 lakhs, including other outstanding payments, the complainant initiated legal proceedings.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case under the NI Act and issued a summons to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petition was filed.

The Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the State of MP vs Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others (2004) case. It emphasized that the Court should not assess the reliability of evidence, as the matter was within the jurisdiction of the trial Court.

The bench also cited the Shiji @ Pappu & Others vs. Radhika & Another (2012) case, wherein the apex Court advised that the expansive powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. required caution.

Thus, the judge dismissed the petition, ruling that the matter should go to trial to determine the facts.