JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Two complaints u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were filed by the appellant against the respondents. In those complaints, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi issued summons to the respondents. An application filed by them for dropping the proceedings was dismissed in terms of the order of learned Magistrate, dated 26.04.1999, holding that "whether the cheques were issued for discharge of debt/liability can be decided only after recording evidence. At the stage of summoning the respondents Court has just to see whether prima facie case is made out against the accused or not u/s. 133 of the N. I. Act." Further, it was held, whether the respondents have made payment by way of bank drafts in lieu of the cheques which are subject matter of complaints can also be decided at the trial and not at the stage of summoning and by way of an application seeking to drop the criminal complaint proceedings. Quite strangely, the High Court, by impugned judgment dated 14.10.2003, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, examined the defence on merits and allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the respondents and reversed the decision of the Magistrate declining to drop the proceedings by holding that by making payment of Rs. 40 lacs, the respondents had discharged their liability. It was no stage to examine the defence of the respondents.
(3.) Though, at this stage, we are not going into the merits, but we may only note that the subject matter of the two complaints are four cheques in all amounting to Rs. 76,55,917.47 ps. According to the respondents, they made payment of Rs. 40 lacs by six bank drafts after the issue of some of the cheques. Whether the said payment has been made or it is towards some of the amounts covered by the cheques are all the questions which can be decided only at the trial of the complaint cases u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and could not have been made the basis of allowing the revision petition. The approach of the High Court is clearly erroneous.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.