Sumit Juneja vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court held that the submission that the cheque was issued without consideration or any legal liability is not acceptable at this stage. The Court referred to Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which provide a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made for consideration and issued in discharge of a debt or liability. The Court cited Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh and other Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that the Court is bound to proceed with the presumption regarding the consideration of the cheque. The Court found that the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act shift the burden of proof to the accused to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt. Regarding the argument about the inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Court noted that subsequent judgments, particularly 'In re: Expeditious Trial’s case', rendered the earlier cited judgments on this point unnecessary to discuss. The Court also distinguished the applicability of the judgment in Birla Corporation Limited's case as it dealt with IPC, not the NI Act. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petition lacked merit.

Facts

The petitioner, Sumit Juneja, filed a petition seeking to quash a complaint filed by M/S PDC Healthcare (respondent No. 2) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Paonta Sahib. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, as Managing Director/authorized signatory of M/S Saintlife Medicine Pvt. Ltd. (accused No. 1), issued post-dated cheques totaling ₹14,62,589/- for medicines purchased on credit. The cheques were dishonoured with the endorsement "Payment Stopped by the Drawer." The petitioner argued that the goods supplied were of inferior quality, leading to GST reversal of ₹13,35,254.81 and issuance of a debit note. He claimed a settlement was reached, a payment of ₹15,00,000/- was made, and he acted as a guarantor for ₹33,00,000/- which was paid. A Chartered Accountant's certificate was produced to support these claims. The petitioner also contended that no mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was conducted before summoning him.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Trial Court erred in summoning the accused without conducting a mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability for the cheques issued? Petitioner's Arguments: - The learned Trial Court committed an error by summoning the accused as the inquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. was not conducted, which is mandatory. - There is no legally enforceable debt or liability. - The complainant failed to withdraw the complaint despite a compromise being reached. - Relied on judgments: Vijay Dhanuka and others Vs. Najima Mamtaj and others, Birla Corporation Limited vs. Adventz Investments and Holding Limited, Abhijeet Pawar vs Hemand Madkhukar Nimbalkar and another, Neeta Sinha vs. P.S. Raj Steels Private Ltd., K.S. Joseph vs Philips Carbon Black Ltd. and another, and In Re: Expeditious Trial of cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881 Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2 of 2020. Respondent's (State) Arguments: - The dispute between the parties is private, and the State has nothing to submit.