Delhi High Court
R.K. Gupta And Sons vs Anant Raj Industries Ltd. on 9 March, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. No one has appeared in this case despite pass over.
2.I propose to dispose of the petition, after perusal of the record.
3.This revision petition has been filed under Section 397/482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 31st January 2003 passed by the learned A. S. J. whereby he dismissed the application under Section 219 as well as 245(2) Cr.P.C moved by the petitioner.
4. A complaint was filed against the petitioner under Section 138/142 of Negotiable Instrument Act (in short referred as 'the Act') for dishonour of nine cheques issued by the petitioner in favor of the complainant for a total sum of Rs.25 lacs. It was stated in the complaint that these cheques were issued as part payment against outstanding dues of Rs.41,98,591.59. When these cheques were deposited by the complainant with bankers, the cheques were returned dishonoured with the remarks ?Account Closed'. The complainant filed a complaint after serving a notice on the petitioner about the dishonour of cheques, asking the petitioner to pay the amount. Upon refusal of the petitioner to discharge his liability, complaint was filed.
5. The lower Court before whom the complaint was filed took cognizance of the offence and issued notice to the accused persons under Section 251 Cr.P.C. in respect of all the nine cheques. The petitioner made an application before the lower Court for discharge under Section 245(2) and application under Section 219 Cr.P.C. stating that dishonour of nine cheques constituted nine separate and distinct offences and all these offences could not be tried together in view of Section 219 Cr.P.C. The other application was for discharge on the ground that the account was closed on 4th February 1992 whereas the cheques were issued in the year 1995 and since the cheques were issued subsequently to the closer of account, provision under Section 138 of the Act were not attracted. Both the contentions raised by the petitioner were rejected by the trial court on the ground that the law in respect of dishonour of cheque on account of 'Account Closed' has changed and in the latest judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in S.R. Muralidar v. Ashok G.Y. Vol. -I (2002) DC 100, the Court has held that it was not of any relevant significance in law to make a distinction between a situation where the cheque is issued before the closure of an account of subsequent to this closure of an account. The other contention was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that in case reported as K. Govindraj v. Ashinbara 1999 CCR 294 (Madras) the High Court had held that dishonour of cheques at one time from part of a single transaction and in case a single notice is given, single complaint was maintainable. In another case reported as Rajasthan Trading Co. v. Chemos International Ltd. and Anr., it was held that complaint in respect of dishonour of 27 cheques if form part of same transaction, is maintainable.
6. Where a person deliberately issued cheques out of 'Closed Accounts' in discharge of his liability, the complainant who was not aware of the cheques having been issued of a close account cannot be made to suffer saying that provisions of Section 138 of the Act were not applicable. The person to whom cheques are issued is not supposed to make an inquiry before receiving the cheques whether the account of which cheques were being issued was 'alive' and 'current' or was 'closed'. Business transactions take place on the basis of trust and once the cheques are issued and the cheques get dishonoured on the ground of account closed, it makes no difference that the account was already closed when the cheques were issued or it was closed subsequently to issuance of cheque. The provision under Section 138 of the Act shall be applicable in both cases.
7. Where several cheques are issued in discharge of liability, and these cheqeus on being presented get dishonoured. All the cheques form part of one commercial transaction and a single complaint can lie in respect of all the cheques under Section 138 of the Act. This shall avoid multiplicity of proceedings, evidence etc. Even in those cases where separate complaints are made by complainant on the basis of different cheques, applications are made by the parties that all complaints be sent to the same court for trial together, as the evidence is same.
8. I find no merit in this revision petition and same stand dismissed.
