M/S Maa Bagala Amusement Hub And Anr vs. Gaurav Bora

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Maa Bagala Amusement Hub and its Managing Partner Shri Sanjib Deka, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash five Negotiable Instruments (N.I.) Act complaint cases filed by the respondent. These cases, pending before the JMFC, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, were filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The dispute stemmed from a Lease Deed executed on 30.10.2015, where the petitioners leased a plot of land from the respondent. A disagreement arose concerning the non-supply of GMC tax receipts, leading to the closure of the petitioners' amusement hub. Subsequently, the respondent filed the N.I. cases based on post-dated cheques allegedly issued by petitioner No. 2 in the name of M/s OM Constructions, a proprietorship firm owned by petitioner No. 2, for lease rent payments. The petitioners contended that these cheques were never issued for lease rent under the Lease Deed and that all rental payments were made via cheques issued in the name of M/s Maa Bagala Amusement Hub.

Held

The Court held that the petitioners' plea that the post-dated cheques were issued in the name of M/s OM Constructions and not M/s Maa Bagala Amusement Hub, and that M/s OM Constructions is not a party to the lease agreement, is a disputed question of fact. The Court noted that it is an admitted fact that the post-dated cheques were issued by petitioner No. 2 in the name of M/s OM Constructions, which is a proprietorship firm owned by petitioner No. 2. These facts can only be decided and adjudicated at the time of trial. The Court also observed that the learned Court below had taken cognizance, finding a prima facie case against the petitioners under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Regarding the pendency of the civil suit, the Court stated that the existence of a civil suit does not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal complaint cases when a criminal liability exists. However, any decree for recovery of arrear rent may be adjusted with the compensation amount in case of conviction. The Court found no reason to quash or set aside the criminal complaint cases by invoking powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., as the petitioners would have ample opportunity to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act during the trial. The Court also noted that the cause of action for all five cases are different.

Key Issues

1. Whether the five criminal complaint cases filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are an abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed, considering the petitioners' contention that the dishonoured post-dated cheques were not issued in the name of the petitioner firm (M/s Maa Bagala Amusement Hub) which is a party to the Lease Deed, but in the name of M/s OM Constructions, a separate proprietorship firm. 2. Whether the pendency of a civil suit filed by the respondent for eviction and recovery of arrear rent affects the maintainability of the criminal complaint cases under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is attracted as there is no legally enforceable debt against petitioner No. 1, because the cheques were not issued by it. They also contended that the respondent insisted on GST payment, a condition not in the Lease Deed, and the respondent himself was not GST registered for a significant period. They claimed the respondent made up a story to trap petitioner No. 2 and that the cases are an abuse of process. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the cause of action for each of the five cases is different, and thus they cannot be quashed in a single petition. They relied on Apex Court decisions stating that the question of rebuttal of presumption comes at the trial stage, not at the cognizance stage, and that dishonoured post-dated security cheques can attract Section 138 of the N.I. Act. They also submitted that the issue of non-existence of an enforceable debt lies on the accused to rebut.