On 14th June a bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Justice Subramanium Prasad in the case of Manpreet Kaur & Anr. Vs. Vinod Bansal held that if the cheque gets dishonoured with endorsement “Payment stopped by drawer” and there were insufficient funds on the date when the cheque was presented it amounts to an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. It further held that the objects and reasons for inserting Chapter XVII in the Negotiable Instruments Act was to enhance the acceptability of cheques in settlement of liabilities by making a drawer liable for penalties in case of bouncing of cheques due to insufficiency of funds in the accounts.
Facts of the case:
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is directed against the order passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi. The respondent herein filed a complaint against the dishonour of a cheque bearing No.017595 dated 01.12.2016 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce for Rs.3,50,000/-, given by the petitioners herein as refund of security amount. The said cheque was returned with endorsement "Payment stopped by drawer" vide return memo dated 10.01.2017. A legal notice dated 12.01.2017 was issued by the respondent and on failure of payment of the said amount, a complaint was filed by the respondent herein against the petitioners herein before the learned Trial Court on 28.02.2017. However the respondent failed to appear during the hearing after which the complaint was dismissed for nonappearance of the complainant/respondent.
Contention of the complainant/respondent:
The following contentions have been submitted by the complainant:
- It was submitted that he couldn’t appear for the hearing as he was absconding fearing arrest due to his involvement in some cases regarding some property and financial transactions.
- It was further stated that when he was released from custody on 15.05.2020, there was lockdown due to the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic.
- It was also submitted that non-appearance of the complainant/respondent herein in the CRL.M.C. 669/2021 Page 3 of 8 complaint case was neither deliberate nor intentional.
Contention of the petitioner:
Mr. Ritesh Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the following:
- There was a delay of more than 575 days in filing the Criminal Revision No.79/2020 and that that out of 575 days delay there was no explanation forthcoming from the respondent for a delay of other 485 days.
- It was also contended that there is no reason given by the respondent herein as to why he did not appear for the proceedings on 18.04.2017, 07.07.2017, 11.01.2018 and 16.05.2018.
Observation and judgement of the court:
The Hon’ble bench of the Delhi High Court observed the following:
- Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments casts a presumption in favour of the holder that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
- When no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners herein by restoring the complaint to its original number it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to raise objections/pleadings that there was a delay on behalf of the complainant in filing a petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C for restoration of complaint.
The complaint was thus held to be maintainable in law.
Share this Document :Picture Source :
