Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2255 OF 2009
[arising out of SLP(CRL.) No. 2353 of 2009]
M/S SACHMI CREATION ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
SMT. PUSHPA DEVI ..... RESPONDENT
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the order dated
th
17 September,2008, passed by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court of Delhi whereby she quashed the
Complaint No. 624/1/2007 filed by the appellant under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(for short 'the Act').
We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
2
A perusal of the record shows that the appellant
st
filed complaint dated 1 March, 2007, under Section
138 of the Act alleging that the respondent had given
ten cheques of Rs 1 lac each in discharge of her
liability against the value of the goods but when the
cheques were presented for encashment, the same were
not honoured by the bank and were returned with memo
th st
dated 6 January, 2007. On 1 May, 2007, the trial
court took cognizance and issued summons to the
respondent who challenged the same by filing petition
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.). The High Court delved into the merits of
the allegations made in the complaint, considered the
respondent's assertion that the cheques were given as
security under the marketing agreement and concluded
that the provisions of Section 138 of the Act are not
attracted in such a case.
In our view, the High Court is per se contrary
to the law laid down by this court – State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal (1992) Suppl 1 SCC 335, R. Kalyani v.
3
Janak C. Mehta (2009) 1 SCC 516 and Mahesh Chaudhary v.
State of Rajasthan (2009) 4 SCC 439. While exercising
power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., the High Court was
not justified in examining the merits of the
allegations made in the complaint and record an
adverse finding on the issue of maintainability of the
complaint.
For the reason afore-stated, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The
concerned Court shall now proceed with the complaint
and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
..................J
[G.S. SINGHVI]
..................J
[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY]
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 20, 2009.