Anand Kumar v. State of Haryana and Another

KULDEEP TIWARI, J.

¶1Through the instant petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings emanating from a private complaint bearing CIS No. NACT-167-2021, as instituted against him by the respondent No.2, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act'). In addition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the:- (i) order dated 02.07.2021, whereby, the learned Magistrate concerned has summoned him in the complaint (supra); and (ii) order dated 12.12.2023, whereby, the learned Magistrate concerned has served notice of accusation upon him.

¶2efore penning do!n any opinion, thus adjudicating the issues agitated in the instant petition, it is dee"ed apt to first deal !ith the facts of the present "atter. CRM-M-7389-2024 (O&M) 2

¶3Succinctly stated, what emerges from a perusal of the im-pugned complaint is that, the petitioner had, in order to discharge his legal liability arising out of a compromise executed between him and the respon-dent No.2, issued a Cheque bearing No.002099 dated 16.03.2021, for ₹60,00,000/-, drawn on Corporation Bank, Branch Charkhi Dadri, to the re-spondent No.2. However, upon the said cheque becoming presented in the bank concerned for encashment, it was dishonoured for the reason "Ac-count Blocked" and resultantly, it was returned unpaid vide return memo dated 18.03.2021. Consequently, the respondent No.2 served a legal notice dated 12.04.2021 upon the petitioner, thereby requesting the latter to make payment of the cheque amount. However, instead of making payment of the cheque amount, the petitioner sent a reply dated 19.04.2021 to the legal no-tice, thereby claiming the said legal notice to be anchored on wrong facts.

¶4Ultimately, the respondent No.2 filed the impugned complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner and examined him-self as CW1, whereupon, the learned Magistrate concerned, vide order dated

02.07.2021, summoned the petitioner. Thereafter, notice of accusation was also served upon the petitioner vide order dated 12.12.2023.

¶5For ready reference, the relevant extract of the impugned com-plaint is reproduced hereinafter:- "1. That accused had entered into an agreement with complainant for sale of land measuring i.e. 0 Kanal- 13  Marla (400 Sq yards) 53/3360 share, Khewat No. 2169, Khatoni No. 2308 out of land mea-suring 42K-0M, situated at City Dadri, Tehsil and Distt Charkhi Dadri, (and accused become owner and possessioner of the above mentioned land on the basis of agreement to sell with Smt. Bimla Devi W/o Jagdish Parsad S/o Chain Sukh and Smt. Sunita W/o Radha Kishan CRM-M-7389-2024 (O&M) 3 and Mamta Devi W/o Parveen Kumar residents of Ward No. 10 Charkhi Dadri Tehsil & Distt Charkhi Dadri) with a total sale consid-eration of Rs. 50,10,000/- (Fifty Lacs ten thousand) on dt.25-10-2012. Accused have received Rs. 50,00,000/-(Fifty lacs) as earnest money from complainant in the presence of witnesses on the same day and Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) will be taken at the time of execution of Sale deed mentioned in the agreement. It was further agreed that ac-cused will execute the Sale deed in favour of complainant or any other person nominated by complainant at any time. It was further agreed between accused and complainant that if accused refuses to execute the Sale deed then complainant would have right to get it executed with the help of the Court to file the specific performance suit of agreement and accused would have no objection and accused would also liable of en-tire expenses. It was further agreed that legal heirs of the parties would be bound also. Photo copy of agreement is attached.

2. That complainant wanted to settle the above matter with accused the addressee because a specific performance case is already pending in between accused and complainant in the court at Charkhi Dadri. So in this regard complainant met to accused in respect of settlement of the present matter and in view of the above despite executing the sale deed in favour of complainant accused agree to repay the above amount with interest @ 1? p.a. to the complainant, the amount became one crore fifty thousand (Rs. 50 lacs ? interest Rs. 55,50,000/- from 25-10-2012 upto 16-03-2021 i.e. 50,00,000?101?1?50,50,000/-) and for dis-charge of accused's pre existing legal liabilities, accused have issued a Cheque No. 002099 of Rs. 60 Lacs dt.16 March 2021 of Corporation Bank Branch Charkhi Dadri to complainant and further remaining payment of Rs.40,50,000/- (forty lacs fifty thousand) accused promised to repay to complainant after two months. It is pertinent to mentioned here that accused the addressee after taking original agreement of above land i.e. dt.25-10-2012, issued the cheque of Rs.60 Lacs to the complainant. Original cheque is attached.

3. That complainant presented the above said Cheque issued by ac-cused in his account bearing No. 19681530002691 in the HDFC Bank at Branch Charkhi Dadri. But this cheque was bounced/dishonoured due to reason "Account Blocked" and due to this reason original CRM-M-7389-2024 (O&M) 4 0he%ue alongwith return memo dated 1/-03--0-1 was returned unpaid to the 2anker of the complainant. !emo attached. #. That dishonor of the said 0he%ue in the aforesaid manner clearl& re-flects accusedCs unpragmatic approach in the matter and accused ha3e intentionall& and malafidel& cheated to complainant and gra22ed 7s. *0 :acs from complainant and issued the a2o3e said 0he%ue onl& to defraud with complainant and there2& committed the offence under section 13/ of ,egotia2le <nstrument Act 1//1 as amended upto dateG.."

¶6The learned counsel for the petitioner, in his beseeching for grant of the hereinabove extracted reliefs, submits that neither the compromise deed, in pursuance whereof the dishonoured cheque is alleged to have been is-sued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2, nor the agreement to sell dated 16.03.2018, nor the Civil Suit No.698 of 2020, wherein compromise was allegedly effected, have been enclosed with the impugned complaint. In fact, the respondent No.2 has only annexed the photocopy of an agreement to sell dated 25.10.2012, which is denied by the petitioner for the reason of its being a fabricated document. Moreover, no suit for specific performance of this agreement has yet been filed by the respondent No.2.

¶7Concluding his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even as per the case set up by the respondent No.2, there can be no legally enforceable debt against the petitioner, inasmuch as, the alleged compromise was effected between the parties so that the respondent No.2 could withdraw the Civil Suit No.698 of 2020, however, neither the said suit has been withdrawn, nor the alleged compromise deed has been produced on record. Therefore, prima facie, there is no case made out against the petitioner.

¶8Per contra, the learned State counsel and the learned counsel for CRM-M-7389-2024 (O&M) 5 the respondent No.2 have vociferously opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the ground that, all these pleas are dis-puted questions of facts, which can only be adjudicated by the learned trial Court, after appreciation of evidence, which is yet to become adduced before it.

¶9This Court has heard the submissions made by the learned coun-sels for the contesting litigants and also perused the record, but, is of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition. The reason for forming this infer-ence is that the pleas/issues raised by the petitioner before this Court are dis-puted questions of facts, which cannot be appreciated and adjudicated in the instant proceedings instituted under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶10Moreover, the petitioner has nowhere disputed the genuineness of his signatures on the dishonoured cheque, rather has come up with a bald plea that the respondent No.2 had managed to get the disputed undated blank signed cheque from one deed writer by misrepresentation and in an unautho-rized manner. However, to the considered mind of this Court, such a bald plea cannot be readily and naively accepted by this Court at this stage, as the same is purely a defence of the petitioner, which can be appreciated only by the learned trial Court, at an appropriate stage of trial. Moreover, once there is no dispute with regard to existence of bona fide signatures on the dishonoured cheque, the presumption in law as provided under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the N.I. Act gets invoked and it is for the petitioner to rebut the same during trial by leading cogent evidence.

¶11Gainful reference in this regard can be made to "K.N. Beena vs. Muniyappan and Another", (2001) 8 SCC 458, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme CRM-M-7389-2024 (O&M) 6 Court has held that "in view of the provisions of Section 139 of the N.I. Act read with Section 118 thereof, the Court had to presume that the cheque had been issued for discharging a debt or liability. The said presumption was re-buttable and could be rebutted by the accused by proving the contrary. But mere denial or rebuttal by the accused was not enough. The accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability." +2. 3n the case of �������������������������������������������� ���, the Hon7%le Supre"e 'ourt has held that "<n 3iew of the e;press pro3i-sion of $ection 13. of the ,.<. Act+ a presumption must 2e drawn that the holder of the che%ue recei3ed the che%ue+ of the nature referred to in $ection 13/+ for the discharge of an& de2t or other lia2ilit& unless the contrar& is pro3ed. Therefore+ the Eigh 0ourt was not =ustified in entertaining and ac-cepting the plea of the accused-respondent at the initial stage of the proceed-ings and %uashing the complaints filed 2& the appellant." +#. Moreover, the Hon7%le Supre"e 'ourt has at paragraph 2, of the verdict rendered in the case of �������������������������� !�!�������� ""�, o%served as under8$ "26…. we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the pre-sumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability……... As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant." +1. 3n su""a, this 'ourt refrains fro" e&ercising its jurisdiction un$ der Section 102 of the 'r.9.'. at this stage, ho!ever, li%erty is reserved to the CRM-M-7389-2024 (O&M) 7 petitioner to raise all the pleas and claims, as raised herein, before the learned trial Court at an appropriate stage. Consequently, the instant petition is 2$%:$%%e2.

¶15Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) May 03, 2024                      JUDGE

CRM-M-7389-2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 241 CRM-M-7389-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 03, 2024 ANAND KUMAR -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Saksham Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, A.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Rana Gurtej Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ***