01Facts
The Petitioner challenged an order dated 23.12.2024 and 07.03.2025 passed by the S.D.J.M., Balangir, taking cognizance and issuing process against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act
p. 1The Petitioner alleged that the two cheques (totaling Rs. 50 lakhs) were not issued for a legally enforceable debt but were forcibly extracted under custodial duress within the locked chamber of a police official in conspiracy with Opposite Party No. 2
pp. 3-4Prior to the NI Act complaint, the Petitioner had filed a private complaint (I.C.C. Case No. 25 of 2024) alleging extortion and coercion
pp. 4-5An inquiry in that prior case under Section 225 of the BNSS resulted in an order dated 19.02.2025, where the Magistrate found a prima facie case of extortion against the accused persons
p. 5, 902Issues
i.1. Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act should be quashed as an abuse of process when the underlying instruments were allegedly obtained through coercion and extortion
pp. 10-11ii.2. Whether the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt can be maintained when a coordinate court has already found prima facie evidence of the forcible extraction of the cheques
p. 1603Law Applied
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which requires a cheque to be issued for the discharge of a "legally enforceable debt or other liability"
p. 14The court referenced Jugesh Sehgal v. Shamsher Singh Gogi regarding the cumulative ingredients necessary to constitute an offense under the Act
p. 15The court cited Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, noting that while blank signed cheques carry a presumption under Section 139, such presumption is rebuttable by cogent evidence
pp. 15-16High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of the BNSS) to prevent the abuse of the process of law, as elucidated in Kapil Agarwal v. Sanjay Sharma
pp. 16-17Provisions in the judgment · 19 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528Section 225Section 5Section 223
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138Section 142Section 139
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 11 provisions
Section 198Section 199Section 201Section 126Section 127Section 129Section 130Section 318Section 351Section 308Section 304Reasoning
The Court observed that the NI Act prosecution appeared to be a malicious "counterblast" to the Petitioner’s earlier complaint of extortion
p. 10, 17The Court emphasized that a coordinate Court, in the Petitioner's prior complaint, had already acknowledged prima facie substance in the allegations that the cheques were forcibly extracted within a police station
p. 16Consequently, the Court reasoned that the essential legal requirement of "free and voluntary consent" for the execution of a negotiable instrument was missing
p. 17It held that statutory presumptions cannot be mechanically applied to legitimize instruments procured through custodial intimidation, as doing so would allow the judicial process to be weaponized for harassment
p. 1605Holding
The Court answered the issues in the affirmative, holding that the continuation of the criminal proceeding amounted to an abuse of the process of law
pp. 17-18The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders dated 23.12.2024 and 07.03.2025, and set aside the proceedings in I.C.C. Case No. 66 of 2024. Any interim orders were vacated
p. 18Original Court PDF
DEBRAJ MEHERvsSTATE OF ODISHA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
