Bhupinder Singh Popli vs. Arvinder Singh Popli

Held

The Court held that the complaint filed by the respondent discloses specific allegations regarding the issuance of the cheque, its presentation, repeated dishonour, issuance of a statutory notice, and failure of payment within the stipulated period. These foundational facts constitute the basic ingredients necessary for initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court found that the principal grounds urged by the petitioner, including denial of legally enforceable debt, alleged misuse or loss of cheque, absence of family settlement, and the nature of dishonour being attributable to technical reasons, are intrinsically factual in nature and require detailed examination of evidence. The plea that the complainant is not a holder in due course and that the cheque was lost or misused also involves disputed questions of fact that cannot be decided without a trial. The documents placed on record do not conclusively negate the existence of liability at this stage but raise issues requiring adjudication by the trial Court. The Court concluded that interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at this stage would amount to pre-empting a full-fledged trial and would not be justified. The petition did not disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for quashing the complaint proceedings. The Court dismissed the petition but granted liberty to the petitioner to raise all permissible defences before the Trial Court.

Facts

The petitioner, Bhupinder Singh Popli, filed a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 482 of CrPC, 1973) seeking to quash a complaint case pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Betul. The complaint, filed by the respondent, Arvind Singh Popli, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 42,00,000/- dated 15.11.2023, which was dishonoured on multiple occasions. The petitioner contended that no legally enforceable debt existed, the cheque was misused, and the dishonour was due to technical reasons. The respondent argued that the complaint disclosed an offence and the petitioner's contentions were matters of defence.

Key Issues

1. Whether the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, discloses commission of an offence, warranting continuation of proceedings, considering the petitioner's defence that no legally enforceable debt or liability exists, the cheque was misused, and the dishonour was due to technical reasons? Petitioner's arguments: The prosecution is based on false allegations, and no legally enforceable debt or liability exists. The complainant fabricated a story of family arrangement to create artificial liability. The cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt but was misused, and the petitioner reported it as lost. The complainant is not a holder in due course. The reason for dishonour, as per bank communication, pertains to technical reasons under the Positive Payment System and does not attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Continuation of proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. Respondent's arguments: The complaint clearly discloses the commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The cheque was issued towards discharge of liability arising out of financial transactions, as evident from the complaint and supporting material. The repeated dishonour and issuance of statutory notice are not grounds for quashment. All pleas raised by the petitioner, including denial of liability, misuse of cheque, absence of family settlement, and the nature of dishonour, are matters of defence requiring appreciation of evidence. At the stage of Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court should not conduct a detailed examination of disputed facts or a mini-trial.