Debt Discharge Claim Requires Full Dress Trial: Jharkhand HC Refuses To Quash Cheque Bounce Case

The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order against the Petitioner by which cognizance has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with the case.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Choudhary observed, “whether or not the petitioner has discharged the debt for which the cheques were issued is a pure question of fact, the veracity of which can only be determined in a full dress trial of the case and certainly, the same being basically a defence of the petitioner cannot be a ground to quash the entire criminal proceeding in exercise of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”

Advocate Razaullah Ansari appeared for the Appellant and Addl. PP Shiv Shankar Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The petitioner Moina Khatoon issued a cheque for Rs.80,000 to the complainant for the purchase of cement from M/s. Abhinav Trading. The cheque was presented at the Bank but was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The complainant presented the same cheque again along with another post-dated cheque for Rs.64,400, both of which were also dishonoured for the same reason. The complainant met the petitioner to demand payment and later received a legal notice indicating that the petitioner had committed forgery. The complainant issued a legal notice demanding payment of Rs 2.23 L, which includes the cheque amounts and other dues. As the petitioner failed to pay the amount within 15 days, the complainant filed a case. The Chief Judicial Magistrate found a prima facie case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and issue summons to the petitioner. Hence, this Petition.

The Court mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. vs. Awadh Kishore Gupta & Others reported in (2004) 1 SCC 691 where according to the Court SC observed that the High Court could not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence is reliable or not as that would be the function of the trial Court.

While mentioning the case of Shiji @ Pappu & Others vs. Radhika & Another reported in AIR 2012 SC 499, the Court said that the Supreme Court of India has observed that plentitude of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by itself makes it obligatory for the High Court to exercise the same with utmost care and caution.

The Court said that whether the debt is discharged or not is a pure question of fact that can only be determined in Trial.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition.

Cause Title: Moina Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand