Petition for Quashing of Summon Order Was to be Dismissed Where Trial Court Convicted Accused u/s 138 of NI Act | HC

Case Details: Sumit Juneja v. State of H.P. - [2024] 159 taxmann.com 214 (Himachal Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Rakesh Kainthla, J.
  • Gangan Oberoi, Adv. for the Petitioner.
  • Avni Kochhar, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the accused was a regular customer of the complainant and was used to purchase medicines from the complainant on credit. A sum of Rs.1.06 crores was due against the accused.

In order to discharge the legal liability, the accused issued a post-dated cheque which got dishonoured. The complainant, thus, filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

The Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. Accused being aggrieved from the summoning order had filed an instant petition for quashing the order and complaint pending before the Trial Court.

It was a case of the accused that manner was settled between parties and thus, nothing was due towards the complainant. Further, no preliminary evidence was led to establish the existence of legally enforceable debt and a summoning order was passed without conducting any inquiry under Section 202 of Cr.P.C.

Further, no inquiry was conducted by examining witnesses. Further, it was noted that the Magistrate passed an order after going through a cheque, notice, and preliminary evidence in the form of an affidavit and other documents attached to the complaint.

It was satisfied that there existed sufficient ground to proceed against the accused under Section 138. Hence, the accused was ordered to be summoned. It was apparent from the order that the Magistrate had not passed the order simply based on evidence but he had satisfied by going through documents, which was sufficient compliance with provisions of Section 202 of Cr.P.C. as laid down in In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases (supra).

Further, in view of the binding precedent of the Supreme Court, there was no requirement for recording statements of witnesses, and the Magistrate was within its jurisdiction to peruse documents to satisfy himself while conducting an inquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the instant petition was to be dismissed. Further, a submission that there was noncompliance with section 202 of Cr.P.C. was not acceptable.